(May 2, 2013 at 10:20 am)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 5:35 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: The same story with different detail. You can't get much more specific than changing which comes before the other in one and reversing the order in the other.

How about the same story from different points of view? Chapter 1 would necessarily be given by revelation, as man doesn't show up til near the end. Chapter 2 at some point seems to switch to Adam's point of view (consider particularly the aside on gold in v12).

What kind of point of view is it that gets the order of creation different? Which divine, infallible revelation is backwards, i.e. wrong, and why? How about a point of view that would be corrected by six grade composition by explaining to keep before and after the same?

order 1) both created at the same time
order 2) Man created, needs woman, woman created from rib

1) same means same
2) must have time in between to tell the story.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

There are others

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

See Bible Contradictions for the rest of the contradictions that must be addressed with explanations which do not contradict each other. That means believers should take my advice and get together and agree on explanations. I will pit believer against believer when they present mutually exclusive explanations. (Prediction: I will be asked, What do you mean by mutually exclusive? rather than answer the mail.)

1) the United States was created before Columbus discovered America
2) the United States was created after Columbus discovered America

The third possibility is Columbus created the United States but I will leave that to another round with believers.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 1:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Yep. G-C. You certainly do have your head shoved firmly up your ass, as always.

So your "god" made man and woman and then told them to start fucking before he did anything else but YOU decide it does not mean what it says. Do you have a bible according to G-C kicking around somewhere? You have an amazing capability for self-delusion.

I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

Ah, yes. The first commandment is to fuck like bunnies BUT the apple was the discovery of sex.

And on the 7th day the omnipotent, all powerful deity needed a rest because his head hurt from creating so many contradictions.

(May 2, 2013 at 10:20 am)John V Wrote: How about the same story from different points of view?

That's how I see it. Two different people telling the same general story with differing agendas, which were later put together with little concern over whether the fine details matched or not.

(May 2, 2013 at 11:05 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: What kind of point of view is it that gets the order of creation different?

Adam's. When he was created, he was put in a garden. Then, animals were shown to him. He didn't know if they were created before him or after him, he doesn't explicitly say either, and it wasn't important to him.

Quote:Which divine, infallible revelation is backwards, i.e. wrong, and why? How about a point of view that would be corrected by six grade composition by explaining to keep before and after the same?

How do you know that the author of Gen 2 (chapter divisions of course being approximate) had Gen 1?

Quote:order 1) both created at the same time
order 2) Man created, needs woman, woman created from rib

1) same means same
2) must have time in between to tell the story.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.

No, it doesn't say they were created at the same time. You read that in. If we say that someone invented X & Y, that doesn't necessarily mean that he created them at the same time. We would need further information to determine if they were created at the same time or one before the other.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s not true at all, often large groups of people all experience the same supernatural event.

And if I were to go back to 400 b.c. and set off a bunch of fireworks...That would be percieved as supernatural, and since large groups of people thought that it was...it must be?

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So if I accept the validity of the sources giving account of God’s interaction with His creation I am justified in believing in God?

Justified how? Because I accept that the beans I just purchased are magic beans, i'm justified in believing they are in fact magic beans because the guy that sold him to me seemed to be on the up-and-up, nevermind not having any reason to believe that such beans existed anywhere...ever?

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How does God’s existence conflict with what we know to be true about the Universe?

Well..That all depends on what attributes you claim your has. Please list any possible attributes that such a being would require, and i'd be happy to explain why it's not consistant with what we know about the universe. (example: Creation Ex Niliho, Omniscient, Omnipotent...)

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That seems to be quite the category error.

Indeed, step on up to the plate and lets discuss the errors with God(s) with respect to scientific knowledge.

Quote: You can't just go visit God and watch him make things.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So?

He he he...a little closer...

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you critically analyze the assertion, “An assertion which cannot be critically analyzed is worthless.”?

Worthless is an opinion, but in a minute you can decide...

Quote: An assertion which is specifically designed to be immune to critical analysis is certain to be a lie.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So the assertion, “I can trust my ability to critically analyze” is a lie?

Lie isn't quite the right word. Unfalsifiable, yes. We'll address the worth of those types of claims shortly...

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Then what valid and sound argument can someone make to prove their car was created?

1)All Toyota Cars are created at various Toyota assembley plants around the world. Toyotas can be identified by several numbers in various places within the assembley of the car.(evidence supports this claim, as every Toyota has identification numbers that can be traced back to any one of the several plants around the world, the results are consistant and there has never been a Toyota that could not be linked to a assembley plant using the numbers.)

2)My Car is a Toyota (verified by the serialized indentification numbers on the various components (which are, for the sake of this syllogism) all that are required to qualify as a Toyota. (Obviously others could be used)

3) My car was created at a Toyota assembley plant (logically follows)

Both of the first two premises are true and backed by verifiable evidence with confirmed qualifying criteria, and the conclusion logically follows.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Give me an example (it’s not my logic by the way, I was actually borrowing your logic, so if you think it is stupid that’s not my problem).

There is no "your logic". There is only logical and illogical. If you refuse to abide by the rules of logic when weighing claims, the conclusions you derrive are illogical. If the conclusions happen to be correct you should hardly be proud of the means of such a conclusion as it was luck at best.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Let me get this straight, you’re saying that we cannot make simple design inferences based on specified complexity unless it’s possible to visit the source of such objects firsthand?

Nope! But, if you wish to make an inductive inference based on rational intuition, the inference made cannot be irrational or unfounded. Looking at a car and inferring it was made, comes from knowledge of experience. There is no experienced knowledge of a God anywhere, and so there is no reason to simply plug it in because you want it to be true.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So we cannot infer that the pyramids were built by Egyptians because we cannot go back in time and experience ancient Egyptians building pyramids firsthand?

Again...If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.

If this is applied to the universe, and God is the inference that is made as an explanation, it has no valid starting point. The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God. There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively. There is absolutely no reason to assume it to be plausible because plausibility can NEVER BE ASSUMED.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You’ve also trapped yourself here because you believe that life can come from non-life, and yet we have never experienced anything remotely close to this occurring naturally firsthand.

an interesting qualifier open to interpretation.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I do not need to support claims that countless numbers of people have already proven for me, life is too short for that.

Please show this proof you speak of...
The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!

(May 2, 2013 at 11:05 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

The only trees mentioned in Gen 2:4-9 are those specifically in the Garden of Eden. It says nothing about these being the first trees created. You read that in because you want to see contradiction.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/co...ounts.html


P.S. It notes that "jesus" says the first one is "correct." Which means that the second one, at least, may be wrong.


Of course, both ignore the fact that both are total horseshit invented by primitive fuckwits and still accepted as fact by fuckwits today.

Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

This is a very common error - reading "only" in where it isn't there. BTW, you should actually read it sometime, you have some details wrong.

(May 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So we cannot infer that the pyramids were built by Egyptians because we cannot go back in time and experience ancient Egyptians building pyramids firsthand?

They are clearly landing structures for gao'uld motherships.

I have seen it with my own eyes on the television so it must be true.

There you have "eye witness" testimony.

(May 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm)John V Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

This is a very common error - reading "only" in where it isn't there. BTW, you should actually read it sometime, you have some details wrong.

Then please fill me in on the details I have wrong. To me it seems simple. Genesis gives no account of others being created so "only" is a perfectly logical assumption.

BTW, I have read it, I just don't have it memorized.