(July 8, 2014 at 12:27 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Things in the bible that are wrong...

Unicorns, disproved.
7 day creation of the Earth, disproved.
Flat Earth, disproved.
Talking snakes, disproved.
Global flood, disproved.
Two people repopulating the Earth, disproved.
Walking on water, disproved.
Virgin birth..only if it's a freshly jizzed on toilet seat, maybe.

You don't really need much else. Especially with Adam and Eve, because without that being true, the whole religion crumbles since there's then no fall and no need for Jebus.

Other than the flat earth (which I don't have any idea what you are talking about) and the 6 days of creation (which has already been discussed having different legit interpretations) none of these things have been disproved. What you would have to disprove is the existence of God and that is not on your list Godslayer.

No offense but it sounds like you need Remedial Science classes.

For example, two siblings repopulating the Earth isn't disproved by Genetics? wtf dude.

(July 8, 2014 at 12:27 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Things in the bible that are wrong...

Unicorns, disproved.
7 day creation of the Earth, disproved.
Flat Earth, disproved.
Talking snakes, disproved.
Global flood, disproved.
Two people repopulating the Earth, disproved.
Walking on water, disproved.
Virgin birth..only if it's a freshly jizzed on toilet seat, maybe.

You don't really need much else. Especially with Adam and Eve, because without that being true, the whole religion crumbles since there's then no fall and no need for Jebus.

Other than the flat earth (which I don't have any idea what you are talking about) and the 6 days of creation (which has already been discussed having different legit interpretations) none of these things have been disproved. What you would have to disprove is the existence of God and that is not on your list Godslayer.

While the myth of the flood is common around the world there was no global flood in the history of the real world. There might have been flood myths in your particular tradition, but we are concerned with the history of the real world. And in such context there was no Noah, no ark, no flood. Ignoring the fact that the myth is borrowed, almost verbatim, from earlier myths (such as the epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the earliest dating of the bible by over one thousand years) the idea of it happening is absurd and impossible. It does not require the non-existence of God to say this. God may or may not still exist and the accuracy of a flood myth would have no bearing on that.

Also population genetics do cast the idea of two people being the source of humanity into serious doubt, and that's a generous way of phrasing it. The idea of a virgin birth is ridiculous for similar reasons, in that a woman by herself does not have the genetic material to make a baby. This was understandably not know at the time the gospels were composed, but there is little excuse today.

As to walking on water, maybe Jesus was the Flash. But I doubt it. The Flash had a cooler suit

(July 8, 2014 at 4:41 am)Godslayer Wrote:

(July 8, 2014 at 12:27 am)SteveII Wrote: Other than the flat earth (which I don't have any idea what you are talking about) and the 6 days of creation (which has already been discussed having different legit interpretations) none of these things have been disproved. What you would have to disprove is the existence of God and that is not on your list Godslayer.

No offense but it sounds like you need Remedial Science classes.

For example, two siblings repopulating the Earth isn't disproved by Genetics? wtf dude.

Noah had three sons. They all had wives, so the Mitochondrial Eve would have been further back. It would seem that Noah would be the Y-chromosomal Adam if these genetic theories are correct.

Um, no, it wouldn't - if these genetic observations are correct. The previous poster hit the nail on the head, clearly.

There has been at least one documented case (in Germany as I recall) of semen being transferred from a prostitute by a subsequent customer back to his wife, and initiating conception.

So, Noah might not be a Y-chromo Adam.


{ick!}

(July 8, 2014 at 11:08 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 8, 2014 at 4:41 am)Godslayer Wrote: No offense but it sounds like you need Remedial Science classes.

For example, two siblings repopulating the Earth isn't disproved by Genetics? wtf dude.

Noah had three sons. They all had wives, so the Mitochondrial Eve would have been further back. It would seem that Noah would be the Y-chromosomal Adam if these genetic theories are correct.

No. You're taking a theory of genetics and slapping on some post-hoc just-so bullcrap so it fits with your Bible. The definition of Y-Adam (pasted from wikipedia) is: a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). Humans (according to the Bible) existed before the masss genocide that left Noah as the only father left, so he cannot be the Y-Adam (which isn't even necessarily an individual, by the way). Noah cannot possibly be the MRCA if his parents were human, by definition.

(July 8, 2014 at 2:37 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(July 8, 2014 at 12:27 am)SteveII Wrote: Other than the flat earth (which I don't have any idea what you are talking about) and the 6 days of creation (which has already been discussed having different legit interpretations) none of these things have been disproved. What you would have to disprove is the existence of God and that is not on your list Godslayer.

This is untrue (people reading this please refer to the beginning of the thread).

There is no 'legitimate' reason found with the bible aside from the mental gymnastics employed in apologetics to presume that the genesis myth is referring to anything other than a literal 6 days.

As to the other things. Our understanding of reality suggests that all of the things listed by godslayer are impossible. As there is no evidence to corroborate the claims found in the bible regarding these, then they can be dismissed.

The Presbyterian Church conducted a survey of the different interpretations. Four major and six minor. You can see them here: http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

Regarding the list, if God exists, these can easily happen. If God does not exist, they did not. You want me to show proof of the positive yet you don't have proof of the negative. Leaving the Bible out of it, it is still more plausible there is a God then not. There are 5-6 cogent arguments for the existence of God that do not rely on Genesis.

Quote:There are 5-6 cogent arguments for the existence of God that do not rely on Genesis.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd settle for just one. Take your time.

Bible Contradictions

(July 8, 2014 at 11:48 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:There are 5-6 cogent arguments for the existence of God that do not rely on Genesis.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd settle for just one. Take your time.

Let's discuss one--Contingency Argument.
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.