Biblical contradictions II

Admin,Joz doesn't sound like Culverin at all... Joz isn't a christian or a creationist.Mark

Theologian63, Sin made thalidomide?Perhaps deformation is caused by many factors, drugs, genetics, & developemental issues, & not a vicious bastard deity at all? I have seen no study that shows clean living mass murderers are more likely to have deformed children. But then, children are innocent, only an egotistical bastard of a deity that claims to give us our morality would contradict that morality & punish the innocent, right? It probably takes some serious juggling to reconcile yourself to having a child that has it's guts born outside its abdomen, & be able to say, "oh, well, that stupid bitch shouldn't have eaten the apple."It hasn't happened to you, has it theologian? Want me to hand you over to my partner who deals with God's vehemence every day? You, nor your vicious, snide deity will not come out smelling of roses. Maybe you should visit an accute peadiatric ward & see the suffering your God visits upon people.? But I doubt you have the stomach for the reality of a children born with no kidneys, a penis AND a vagina, a urethra that connects to neither, an intestine a fraction (useless) of the usual length, ALL ON THE OUTSIDE.....I often hope I am mistaken in my agnosticism, I am damn sure, however, that I hope am not mistaken at the expense of a biblical literalist Yahweh, who deliberately vistits such suffering at random, allegedly for someone elses trivial "crime". What's wrong with you people?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

God didn't make the sun. There, unsupported assertions are easily made.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Theologian, You mean to tell me yours was a bigger, better supported argument? It wasn't, perhaps you should critically examine your own writings before criticising others. The point of what I wrote was to show that neither argument was a good argument. You seemed to get the message, in a roundabout kind of way. It came from a 2nd/3rd generation nova. Wherever astronomers look, energy-gravity=0. Hence it appears that the matter/energy of the universe is borrowed against the universes gravity. A bit like having a bank account with nothing in it, then borrowing XX, you now have two sides to the ledger, the negative amount you borrowed, & the positive amount you owe, they are exactly equal, but separate entities.The cause of the event that caused the split was a chance random event, much like the events that cause matter to appear spontaneously out of energy.Much is speculated, but it doesn't violate any knowledge we already have, & indeed, is consistent with it. It is therefore plausible. Now, you tell me how you can critically examine & test your God theory & show it to be evidentially better than my scenario. I will expect your counter to be logically valid, of course.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Theologian, Your argument was backed up by a logically invalid source. Since no one can be sure who the writers of Genesis were, whether it remains in it's original form, or whether the authors were experts in what they write, any argument that draws on the bible is logically flawed on the following grounds: argument from anonymous authority.I'll go with the evidence that the universe has been in existence for ~15by, over an unverifiable book that no one really knows who wrote, whether they were telling the truth, that is actually contradicted by evidence. That's a theory that successfully predicted cosmological background radiation, right?The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the bible reckons about 6k years. Surely the critical thinker you claim to be would go with the logically sound, evidentially consistent, & predictively correct theory?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Theologian,269, please.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-10-2003]

Theologian, Then using Genesis as evidence of creation is fallacious.I repeat, "The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the bible reckons about 6k years. Surely the critical thinker you claim to be would go with the logically sound, evidentially consistent, & predictively correct theory?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-10-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-10-2003]

Theologian, You really mean to tell me you haven't examined the evidence?Here's one:The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe, another, more, & more. All of which rest on observations consistent with an old universe.As for requiring "IRREFUTABLE" proof? I claimed the evidence supported a billions of years old universe. Since when have you been able to provide irrefutable proof of a 6,000 year old universe? All you have is an unverifiable book written by middle eastern pastoralists thousands of years ago. Nothing in science is irrefutable, there is always room for improvement. What would Jesus, Mark, John etc know about Genesis any more than you? They never knew who wrote it either, & are guilty of exactly the same Appeal to Anonymous Authority you are. Assuming they exist.The best explanation, given the body of current evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, compared to NO valid evidence suggesting that the universe is 6,000 years old. There is a reason science thinks the world is ~15 billion years old, if you were critically thinking, you would have availed yourself of this evidence long ago & assessed it's merit vs the biblical account.The truth is, theologian, is that you are not critically examining evidence within a logical framework. You don't care what evidence contradicts your evidenceless assertions, yopu believe the biblical account, & no amount of evidence will change your mind.If I said I believed that the Galactic Goat sneezed the universe out of it's nose 1.5 million years ago, despite all contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree that this is not a good intellectual place to be?Markps The Hovind quote is my signature & doesn't impinge on our discussion at all.------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."