Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!

Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless


Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.

Bridging Continents with Land

A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.

Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.

The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges

You're such a dumbshit but funny

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.

 

[daws101]

What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory.

No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.

Galatians 3 (NIV)

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The Law and the Promise

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

bullshit alert!
A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
•Introduction to Contradictions
•Contradictions
•References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!

odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!

Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless


Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.

Bridging Continents with Land

A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.

Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.

The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges

You're such a dumbshit but funny

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?

Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory.

No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.

Galatians 3 (NIV)

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The Law and the Promise

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

bullshit alert!
A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
•Introduction to Contradictions
•Contradictions
•References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!

odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups.

Dummy is trying to change the subject

 

[daws101]

Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless


Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.

Bridging Continents with Land

A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.

Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.

The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges

You're such a dumbshit but funny

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.

no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
there you go again making slapdicky statements.
the fact is no one with even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.

no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
there you go again making slapdicky statements.
the fact is no one with even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.

You're a fool and a fool you will always be but it is fun exposing your ignorance of the theory you defend,priceless.

 

[daws101]

Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless


Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.

Bridging Continents with Land

A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.

Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.

The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges

You're such a dumbshit but funny

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?

Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.

that's never stopped you...
well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent : Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.
The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below.

The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates.

If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au

 

[daws101]

Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.

no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
there you go again making slapdicky statements.
the fact is no one with even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.

You're a fool and a fool you will always be but it is fun exposing your ignorance of the theory you defend,priceless.

you've exposed nothing but your hubris. the more you post the larger an asshole you become.
that's only a guess ,because it's hard to imagine an anal aperture as large as you already are.

 

[Hollie]

No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.

Galatians 3 (NIV)

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The Law and the Promise

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

bullshit alert!
A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
•Introduction to Contradictions
•Contradictions
•References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!

odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups.

Dummy is trying to change the subject

Actually, it was stalker fundie who chose proselytizing and ignorantly using the bibles to prove the bibles are true.

That’s especially ironic when proselytizing and ignorantly using the bibles to prove the bibles are true only proves the bibles are a mess.

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18


ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.


ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)


ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5


ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1


ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26


ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29


ON GOD CHANGING HIS MIND
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people." (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

I think it's time for yet more bibles to correct the errors, omissions, contradictions and outright falsehoods.

 

[emilynghiem]

Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).

Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?

Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.

So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?

 

[LittleNipper]

Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.

The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.

Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

Here is exactly what your secularized education has led to:
10 years later, the real story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com

WAY TO MAKE HOLLIE'S POINT CRYSTAL CLEAR! asshole!

Hollie's point was that bringing Creationism into the classroom would cause fear, confusion, and bring about superstition. Well, the TRUTH is that the public school system in these United States has had 50 years of no Christian understanding expressed and little such influence (due to governmental legal control). The result has been fear, confusion, and the growth of superstious hedonism. The gothic movement, mass shootings, and a breakdown of stable family values. Instead of coming out of the cave, as evolutionists promote, society seems to be headed towards a new dark age. Students are faced with making poor judgment calls with regard to hygene, sex, drugs, behavior patterns. Abortion rates have gone up. Unwed motherhood has increased. Boys thinks they are girls and girls think they are boys. Both think that skin is a canvas for billboard displays and punching holes in the likes of which have not been seen even among jungle tribes.
The truth is that while American Judao/Christian values had an open expression in the public school classroom, things were not perfect; however, things were far more stable. There was far less confusion between what was right and wrong/logical and illogical. Agnostic/hedonistic opinion/values faced opposition and didn't have an unlimited influence.
Note: I have not stooped to childish name calling and feel that I have presented a fair apraisal from a position of having witnessed the time period in question. I lived the educational changes from 50's/early 60's education to the downward spiral after the fall of 1963. The change was drastic and immediate. I can see that only the reintroduction of God in some degree of representation is what will reestablish progressive education, and help end the increasing cicle of helpless negativity so pervasive throughout society today.

 

[Borderline]

Well, the question itself has holes in it. It leads one to arrive at an answer that anyone who does agree with the subject matter is stupid or ignorant. The ignorant, we can deal with... they can be informed. Stupid are those who are informed but too stuck in an opinion to change point of view or to attempt to rationalize opposing point of view or ideology. Stupid can be; arranging questions in a manner as to focus the attention away from the subject in question and onto someone else's supposed ignorance or strupidity. Now... let's re-arrange a bit; the context of the question. **How does one come to a conclusion that the earth is [only] 6000 years old?** I see how a person can come to that conclusion, *if so desired*[because I have done it]... just as I can see how people more readily accept the explanation that it to be much older. I can find agreement with both conclusions.
First, let's go with science and technology. Let's try to avoid "psuedo-science" let's try to avoid ideology of bought off scientists who may be agenda based... those who believe the statistcs presented by science... must have "faith" in the research... and that "faith" the sole factor that allows agreement with the conclusion. The research is based on presented "evidence". We *know* from evidence of bone dicovery there were at one time GREAT land animals that roamed the earth, we reference them in a category called "dinosaurs". To date, there has been no evidence of any drawing upon the wall of any cave by earliest "man"... a dinosaur. Is that evidence that the dinosaur never existed... was at one time, I suspect. To me... it's more evidence that "man" did not exist during the same time frame. Some millinia later... beacuse they were mainly cave dwellers, and again, *I* suspect did quite a bit of digging *within* the caves for specific purposes such as fire pits... a bone might be unearthed that was a point of amazement to the one who found it. From that bone great creatures may have been drawn on walls... the fiercer the creature the better. From earliest recorded history man has found great comfort and/or pride in over-coming the obstacles of his environment... the great bears and bison of America... as did those in Africa, the great cats and elephants. These things are documented and often illustrated. Sometimes the illustrations are today considered quite simple... generally in profile only... and quite 2 demisional. This held true through the construction and use of the great pyramids... both Egyptian and otherwise[Mayan for example]. Totem poles and carvings in weaponry brought in 3-D to a degree. But that ability seemed to have found its' way into the art world and dissappeared again for some time[lost to flat panel illustration]. Anyway... as far as science detected time relationships... it's based for acceptance in the human's ability to reason with the explanation. Many explanations have been discounted over the years... due to admittance later of the fraud purpetrated by the one who did the original presentations... Darwin is a good example. BUT, as yet there has been no scientific rebuttal to date that will clearly state that his theories along with those who both prceded and followed him... that the *theory* itself is not worthy of investigation. A great many, this day, still subscribe to Darwin's theories. There seems to be a point today... where, if man cannot explain a thing... it's little more than something within "NATURAL OCCURENCES", that just hasn't been properly addressed. THIS where I find humor with ANY governing agency or body that believes it can control nature. Weather/climate being a specific point of contention... and issue these days. But he'll try to sell his wares... because it gives the governing body more control over those governed. Generally the outcome to the governed is severe in personal losses and costs while enriching those who supported the governing forces.
Well, back on subject, whether it's right or wrong... dependent on how believable it becomes to the masses... a thing is proven to be scientifically acceptable within the "community at large". Man cannot control nature. Where is the scientific data that proves that last sentence true or false? A Deity did not create the heavens and the earth... much "evidence" has been ammased to show how a great many things of re-occurence *may* have transpired. If you have *faith* in the research... then you'll easily agree. But as yet... there has been no scientist or group of scientists that can discount the theory that a Deity did, in fact, create the heavens and earth. I believe many scientists, researchers, naturists, among others have been trying to discount the ideology of the Creation for some time. BUT, also, I believe, related to a scientist or one of curiosity,.. as a child is drawn to disassemble a toy to see how it works... hopefully... THIS to also be the driving force behind much discovery, NOT to disprove a point but to have a better understanding of a thing.
Now... to the understanding as to how one might come to the conclusion that the earth is no more than 6000 years old... of course... we begin by accepting that several years have passed since the idea originally arose... which means... THAT time has added many more years. So hence we place a 6000+/- years old. Also... we must accept that who-so-ever makes that statement is held in deep religious conviction. So, whereby he may also accept much scientific information... THAT is not the basis of conclusion on the subject matter. The conclusion is based in the conviction of "THE WORD". Also many who have come to the same conclusion do NOT discount ALL scientific discovery... but accept both have merit.
The Text begins, "In the beginning..." this does relate to the beginning of all things... but the beginning of what we refer to as "earth's/the world's creation"... here *I* accept many things existed prior to this point... had already been created.
[NOT TO WORRY, DEAR READER... we're not going sentence to sentence throughout the text]
There are numerous interpretations as to what transpired... in various languages... the term in the original language of interpretation for "created" also defines "formed"... the one who forms a thing, may not have at the same time created it. So here we have an opening for rebuttal... related to the time constraints. It is my belief that a Deity of such a magnitude as to have done what has been presented thusfar... could have just as easily done all within the span of one day. At this point the text does NO reference of time... we have no idea if the "earth" was yet rotating on its' own axis, nor, if so... at the rate it does at present. We know there were waters, says so. Then "light" was created, at this point the only way to divide the light and darkness was to put the earth rotating on it's axis or in some manner place a block between the source of light and the earth, so I'm thinking this being the point the earth began rotating on its' own axis... anyone have any idea how much "time" transpired during this and the last event? I think not. And the "light" was not the light of the sun... yet to be created. So THIS light may have encompassed the whole earth... if darkness came first... is darkness the absence of light? How would you define it? Anyhow... this is the light that defines day and night, today we use the sun which was not in existence as yet... so how many hours of daylight were there by standards of THIS light? Well, the above is for reason... we seem to be very *TIME* oriented today... this is not the light that would become the acknowledged time table... a time for planting, a time to sow, a time to reap. These became the acknowleded timetables. The day from night time spectrum became times of duty and times of rest. Among all things. But we focus on time... and now MY explanation as to how one who follows the teachings coming to the "earth age" being as little as 6000+/- years. Psalms 90-4: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday..." or 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". You can mathmatically change the above noted time spectrums in either direction... more years, less years than have actually transpired. Imagine something thought to be a million years old or older. If each of those years might be accepted as a single day, and there are [now] 365 days in a year... how large can that number the million be expanded to? If 1000 years can be dwindled to the mind as a single day... what can 6000 years be dwindled to or expanded to? dwindled to 6 days... expanded to... infinity. This can be the understanding some want to express... for those who desire to use it as a point of argument... to rebute a statistic of acceptance, I feel sorry... more-so I feel they have the need to draw attention more to themselves than to a convicted belief. So as shown here, I can see where one comes to the "conclusion" that the earth is little more than 6000 years old... but THAT is... if you are GOD... those proclaiming this fall far from the ability to claim themselves as such. Just my humble opinion... may or may not reflect the opinion of staff and/or the management. Take it for what it is. What is presented shows that in GOD's eye, there is no conscript to time... in time all things will be... those things that have passed... did so in man's understanding of time. A thing that happened 10,000 years ago... in the mind of GOD is as fresh as it had happened yesterday. For too many, I sadly state it to be a ploy to give such explanation as so many tend to do without acknowledging... it may or may NOT apply to them... they are, in present state... merely mortal. I have found it not wise to play with the teachings of "mother nature" NOR... GOD. This is not a scientific explanation... not meant to be. This presented to show how one might present the "opinion" that according to scripture... one could see the age of the earth, as seen by GOD... as being as few as 6000 years old. Am I believer that the earth is merely 6000 years old? YES... am *I* a believer that in years as *I* understand a year to be... it is much older... YES.
Thank you for your indulgence. Now what I would suggest... if there is any misunderstanding a person has about ANY aspect of life... before pointing fingers and eluding to ignorance or stupidity of another... do some research into the matter. In that this question was posted on the internet... there is a WORLD of explanation to answer ANY question I have thus far seen posted anywhere... and some questions... well they just become rhetorical, because we have become a society that wants everyone else to do the footwork. Generally, I have found, one of the things that make life so seemingly complicated is a severe desire to NOT want to study anything... just be fed whatever anyone wants you to think.

 

[LittleNipper]

The simplistic explanation of my biblical belief is that God reveals through His Word that Adam was created (likely appearing as a fully mature, grown, 30 something, male. He likely was even designed with a navel) being the prototype for all humanity to come. Now, if one can accept this concept, the next step is to understand that God created and designed a perfect universe and earth with a perfect ecological system in place to support that man and eventually Eve.

Now when man sinned, confusion entered into the entire universe (all creation). From this point the perfect world began to be ruined. The violence among men is revealed in the Bible and finally the earth is changed even more rapidly by the Flood. Something man had never seen before.

Logically, pre-existing rocks were crushed and once perfect strata ruptured and pulled apart. Out in space the universe (having been thrown out of wack) comets, asteroids, and meteors come into existance and hit the various planets, moons, etc., throughout the solar system & the entire universe. So, the result is that what was once created in 6 days has been mixed in with everything that happened during the Flood and has occurred since the Flood ended.

The obvious problem is that man now wants a "natural" explanation for what he finds, but is in fact missing the real interpretation without understanding God, Creation, and the Flood. The "natural" man cannot accept the spiritual reality and so he fabricates a "natural" tale from what he sees and comes to false conclusions. It isn't that there is no evidence for God. The "natural" man is simply ignoring that evidence to the point of not even understanding why society is becoming more and more unmanageable the farther it drifts from doing God's will.

 

[Borderline]

>>>The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.<<< I have to disagree, the term Bible references to the modern word bibliography. It is NOT a history book, as history books are considered to be today... but a bibliography of the recordings of that history. >>>The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?<<< What thing would GOD have created that was unclean? The times marked the understanding... also this was to include HUMANS of various tribes that were allowed into the ark. >>>The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.<<< Disagrees[?] or one might include more information than the other. As stated throughout the Bible, not all were present at any given event... and the events of that day may have been passed to other disciples through letters or messengers. Also to be noted... most of the books were written from oral testimony or letters... not BY the original source, the disciple. >>>Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.<<< Again, I state... the Bible is a BIBLIOGRAPHY of the events, a layman might consider it a history book... he'd be in grave error to do so.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. >>>"That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...<<< Often Jesus spoke in parables. Does that make any interpretation of a parable a lie? I think not... however it can show a misunderstanding. Even the night before he is taken, Jesus makes reference to the disciples lack of understanding... THEY still have the view of MORTAL human beings and even after witnessing the "miracles" they had witnessed... were stuck, being mere mortals and lacked a full comprehension of just how vital they were to the over-all mission of Christ. They were fishermen, carpenters, soldiers, accountants, etc... there view of the mission, very limited... in NO way could they grasp completely the impact this "Man" would have on the world.

2. >>>"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.<<< Merely as amusing as those who want to rebute its' presentation without a good understanding OF it?

3. >>>"It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?<<< At what point do you consider a thing taken out of context... John 3:16 pretty much will stand on its' own in any venue, I would think. I do not understand your point here.

4. >>>"There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.<<< There are numerous places where although a thing might be misinterpreted the end meaning be close enough and the same to pass through various understandings to mean the same... seen in the first book, first chapter, and verse... the term "created" and "formed" are the same when translated from the original text to Greek, although todays defining might find difference in the two terms.

5. >>>"That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.<<<Miracle: super-natural occurence. An occurence that cannot be defined by any natural explanation... happens every day... in all parts of the world. Why does the word miracle upset you so? Because it's not the term "super-natural"?

6. >>>"God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.<<<Sorry but I find your weak attempts of pointing finger at mere mortals short of amusing and generally poor in reasoning. Also... I believe, your understanding of the text is not thanks to study, but done with a preformed conclusion. Your dissappointment in mankind is not cause to point a finger at an interpretation one may have of the text. Perhaps you should be more intro-spective with accusation and a bit less in telling others of "lies" you did not find but went in search of.

 

[Borderline]

Does this show contradiction?
ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?

 

[newpolitics]

Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?

Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.

Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.

You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency of meyers argument to darwin's is laughable. Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims. Meyers has none.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your point? as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving the real dumb shit is you.

So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?

Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.

that's never stopped you...
well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent : Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.
The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below.

The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates.

If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au

You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Does this show contradiction?
ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?

Tempt is a poor choice of words here the word should be tested.

Gen 22:1 And it happened after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me.

Here is the same verse in the jewish bible



The Torah (Jewish Bible)



Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 22

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."

&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1468;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1504;&#1460;&#1505;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;:


Abraham was put to the test.

Putting someone to the test is what God will do God will not tempt someone.

 

[LittleNipper]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

How long was the first day?

you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
maybe this will be easier [ame=http://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evidence.

What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...