Bible contradictions?

[Phil]

Please refrain from calling names.

Why, you're an irrational, retarded, illogical, non-person so why should I refrain from calling you names?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...anything unchanging is atemporal. We cannot conclude that there is an "outside" of time....

Does this exclude the possibility of real things whose attributes are not contingent upon time or change?

Furthermore, God being atemporal makes the notion even more incoherent. How can there be an atemporal agency? How could god have "created" the world, if creation is an event and is therefore temporal...

You have correctly pointed out one of the first problems with "creation ex nihilo" with respect to efficient cause.

If the universe is "all there is" in the strong, metaphysical sense, then it doesn't need a cause.

Agreed. Suppose you define the Cosmos like Sagan did as "all that is, was or ever will be." Does your understanding of the "strong metaphysical sense" include only physical reality? Can the Cosmos include things on which physical reality depends but which in themselves are distinguishable from physical reality? Mathematics and logic for example.

[chi pan]

Did you know that dogs don't exist in nature? They're the result of artificial selection (that is, they were bred from wolves).

Only proves that verity can exist without millions of years.

1. Can you define "kind" for me?

It is not clearly defined. I can only give examples, such as all dogs are a kind. All horses are a kind and donkeys and possibly zebras. All bears are a kind, all squirrels are a kind, etc. some may be unable to reproduce anymore but they are still the same kind of animal. Even a three year old could tell you that.

2. You do know that two of a given species isn't enough to sustain a species for more than one generation, right? After all, who do their children breed with? Each other?

You are right if you go by today's evidence. However, I believe our genetics have gotten worse over the generations making imbreading impossible today but not back then. Plus, Noah's sons brought their wives FYI. Genesis 7:13.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about Job!

That verse does not say God created the stars on day 2. This is God speaking to Job illustrating how little he understands of him. They do not describe order of creation.

[Phil]

You are right if you go by today's evidence. However, I believe our genetics have gotten worse over the generations making imbreading impossible today but not back then.

The word is inbreeding not imbreading and it isn't impossible just not a good idea if you want to pass say six or seven generation before going extinct. Ok, I'll play your stupid make believe game. Today's evidence shows the deleterious effects of inbreeding. All we have is todays evidence though. As you say you believe genetics has changed over the years. What scientific evidence do you have to assume such a change or is it just a belief you hope would be true based on nothing but a hope?

[chi pan]

You are right if you go by today's evidence. However, I believe our genetics have gotten worse over the generations making imbreading impossible today but not back then.

The word is inbreeding not imbreading and it isn't impossible just not a good idea if you want to pass say six or seven generation before going extinct. Ok, I'll play your stupid make believe game. Today's evidence shows the deleterious effects of inbreeding. All we have is todays evidence though. As you say you believe genetics has changed over the years. What scientific evidence do you have to assume such a change or is it just a belief you hope would be true based on nothing but a hope?

I'm not going to change the subject. We are talking about contradictions, not science.

[Phil]

You are right if you go by today's evidence. However, I believe our genetics have gotten worse over the generations making imbreading impossible today but not back then.

The word is inbreeding not imbreading and it isn't impossible just not a good idea if you want to pass say six or seven generation before going extinct. Ok, I'll play your stupid make believe game. Today's evidence shows the deleterious effects of inbreeding. All we have is todays evidence though. As you say you believe genetics has changed over the years. What scientific evidence do you have to assume such a change or is it just a belief you hope would be true based on nothing but a hope?

I'm not going to change the subject. We are talking about contradictions, not science.

First off fuckhead you brought it up.

Second, nice to see you can't justify talking out your ass.

Third, do you understand why I hold no respect for you and many people here are beginning to feel the same way?

[KichigaiNeko]

Also used to predict the outcome of INBREEDING of any species.

[Undeceived]

All we have is todays evidence though. As you say you believe genetics has changed over the years.

I don't want to change the subject, but that just about convicted Evolution. We don't see increases in genetic info today, or macroevolution, or the formation of stars, or the natural evolution from H to heavier elements, or even how most every geological form ever originated-- yet people believe them all. And I fail to see how inbreeding is unique to creationism. In evolution, every new mutation stems from one organism in one isolated environment. Not only is it inevitable that inbreeding will occur, the beneficial mutation is more likely to be passed on if both parents have it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but genetic reproductive barriers usually impact smaller numbers because probability is low for their creation to begin with.

[Phil]

All we have is todays evidence though. As you say you believe genetics has changed over the years.

We don't see increases in genetic info today,

Over generations? We sure do. You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

or macroevolution

Evolution is evolution but if you are referring to speciation, you are wrong. Look up polyploid speciation for just one example. You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

, or the formation of stars

Wrong again retard. Ever heard of steller nurseries aka molecular clouds? You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

, or the natural evolution from H to heavier elements

Wrong again asshole. What do you think causes the sun (and other stars) to give light? You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

Too late, you look stupiderer.

[KichigaiNeko]

Just sayin...