Creationist Ken Ham compares Bill Nye to Eve for offering fruit from ‘Tree of Knowledge’

[phantom power]

I remember being so young and naive that I thought the Enlightenment had actually cured us of this horse shit.

But either way, Ken, definitely keep doubling down on the whole Eve And The Serpent story, I'm sure the wimmenz find it super endearing.

Ham said that Nye’s philosophy was a modern-day illustration of the “Fall of Eve” in the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

In the Book of Genesis, a serpent implores Eve to be skeptical about God’s command not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent informs Eve that contrary to God’s warning, she would not die if she ate from the tree and would instead become “like God, knowing good and evil.”

“You know really, it’s an illustration — the reasonable man is an illustration of Genesis 3,” Ham explained. “Trust God, or you become like God. There has been a battle since Genesis 3 between God’s word and man’s word. It’s always been a battle over authority. Who is the authority: God or man? And down through the ages there has been that battle.”

“In fact, in 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul has a warning for us, and this is God’s word through Paul, that Satan is going to use the same method on us that he did on Eve to get us to that position of not believing the things of God,” he added. “And what is the method he used on Eve? ‘Did God really say?’ What is it? To doubt the word of God, to not believe the word of God, to make yourself the authority. You know what? That was the battle that played out here on this stage.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/06/creationist-ken-ham-compares-bill-nye-to-eve-for-offering-fruit-from-tree-of-knowledge/

[Xipe Totec]

1. So, basically, God lied and the serpent told the truth:

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:1-6

1: Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Even if you were to believe Genesis as the literal truth, it shows that God is a liar.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Not just a liar, but a douchebag as well

The whole idea of not allowing them to eat of the fruit was that it would make them as gods themselves.

Why would a caring, loving god not want his creations to know or understand the concept of good and evil?

Plus, of course there is this; It was a test god set up KNOWING Adam and Eve would fail it. How could he tell them not to do something, ostensibly because it would be wrong, and expect them to carry it out if they didn't know right from wrong/good vs. evil in the first place?

As a side note, the entire reason the likes of Ken Ham cling so tightly to the creation story as fact is because if it isn't true, then there was no fall from grace. If there was no fall from grace then there is no need for redemption. If there is no need for redemption then there is no need for a redeemer.

If all the above is true (which it is) then the entire christian faith falls like the house of cards it is.

To the believers who read the above; You don't need believe without question the story to understand and appreciate the moral.

[Archae]

2. Sore loser.

[HereSince1628]

4. Not at all a loser...the question was whether creationism was an alternative story of origins

in an age of 'science'. Regardless of how fictional it is (or how internally inconsistent it is within western religion--the story is told twice in Genesis, but differently), biblical creation certainly is without a doubt alternative story.

Ham is doing what all the professional Creation advocates do...exploiting the friendly audience the debate gave him.

These debates do little to change minds.

However this time the post-debate commentary included a surprise. 'Young Earth' isn't accepted by Pat Robertson. That statement from a politically active evangelist may be more important to managing the biblical creationists' war on science curriculum than the televised debate.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. Yeah, even Pat Robertson knows that there is far too much evidence that the Earth...

is far older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old. There were civilizations, even organisms alive today that are older than that. But I would say this was far less of a debate, and more of an attempt at education by Bill Nye, not of Ken Ham, but of his audience. Bill Nye was able to illustrate the sharp contrast between himself and Ken Ham, one that doesn't throw a good light on Ken Ham or his position at all. It made him look both silly and dogmatic.

[HereSince1628]

11. Yes, I see that as progress. Back in the 80's when they conceded Hardy-Weinberg

I saw that as almost half the victory. Acceptance of microevolution by biblical fundamentalists was huge.

Getting evangelicals to accept a geological timeline may not be that big, but it's big.

For biologists concerned about evolution of species (rather than origin of matter, evolution of habitable planets, etc), time and micro-evolution is at least half the story...

[world wide wally]

3. So, if you believe in God and the story of Adam and Eve, then you were made to know good and evil by

the works of God. Therefore, there shouldn't be any crying over spilled milk, and it is your DUTY to seek out truth and knowledge. Further accumulation of knowledge is required. Ignorance is the sin, ya know?

[el_bryanto]

5. That's actually a great analogy - although not in the way Ham

means it.

Bryant

[Rex]

6. Eat the fucking fruit!

[liberal_at_heart]

7. I've heard my father proclaim the same thing.

[nyquil_man]

8. You know, I've never heard God say anything.

It's always filtered through humans.

It's not a debate between "trust God" and "trust man." It's a debate between "trust man with a story" or "trust man with evidence."

[Kurovski]

9. I got some fruit for ham right here.

He seems to be a paranoid dingbat.

But, whatever pays the bills, eh Hammy?

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. I seen some debates after the Sumerian Texts

and their translations on what the jewish god was and other gods that lived at the same time.

In most ancient religions the snake, China, Indian, American natives was seen as bringer of civilization and knowledge. but there was a fight between these gods, whereas one wanted humans to worship him and the other gods did not.

The Greeks also had the same theme going with Prometheus which Ridley Scott carried on with his last movie, that brought in the ancient alien theme.

YHWH was an absolutely a Psychopath with his history and commandments. as were the other gods that some humans followed. Example ...thy shall not kill but then tells the Jews to kill every human in the town they destroy

The Pantheon of god's jealousies and power grabs over the human race for dominance is fascinating, be it in any ancient culture that was not connected but have similar themes going on.

Its either a collective unconsciousness that created this crap or something else was going on.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. He's getting to be more like Dr. Zaius every damn day.

George: There's your Minister of Science; honor bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge.
Dr. Zira: Taylor please!
George: Except that he's also Chief Defender of the Faith!
Dr. Zaius: There is no contradiction between faith and science... true science

[NuclearDem]

14. Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But I guess Ken Ham would know that if he spent time reading the thing he was thumping.

[AlinPA]

16. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current

moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
— H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief