"Also , Ham 's wrong about the bible . It 's not that the bible is eliminated , it 's that the bible is not considered to have primacy over actual evidence , whereas Ham wants the bible to have primacy over everything ."
"The bible is evidence . Its existence is a fact . What that fact represents is subject to interpretation . Ken 's argument is that choosing to believe the bible is infallible is no more or less of a presupposition than choosing to believe that logic is infallible . He 's right in absolute terms , but those axioms are not equally congruent with reality ."
"bible . It 's not that the bible is eliminated , it 's that the bible is not considered to have primacy over actual evidence"
"fact represents is subject to interpretation ."