Logical fallicies in the bible

Just so i'm clear on the implications of this thread... if just one inconsistency, or logical error, or impossible event can be found (well maybe not impossible event) then creationists don't really have a leg to stand on. Their whole argument is based on the assumption of the inerrancy of the bible. If it can be shown that a part of the bible is in error who's to say other parts are not in error? maybe they could say "well, just this one part is wrong, but the rest is solid gold"... but how would they know? there isn't any document that say "well these parts of the bible are historically accurate, but these parts are not".If any bit of the bible can be shown to be untrue, or to contradict another part of the bible, who's to say what is accurate and what is inaccurate (historically and scientifically speaking).just to cover my ass a little bit, i don't intend to slam religion, Christianity, or Catholicism in any way with this post. i respect individuals who practice religion and their religious doctrine (as long as it doesn't hurt me or take away my rights). I believe religion and science can exist side by side, but should not be mixed... like apples and oranges... or maybe dingoes and babies.

mark24, this may be the wrong place, but about your quote/signature. that bracketed [also] totally changes the meaning of what he says. with the also he is obviously being hypocritical, however with out the also he is stating that evolution is a religion. he says nothing about the religious status of creationism (regardless of how obvious it may seem to some).so adding that also makes his statement sound foolish (well... even more so than with out the also). just sayin'

still off topic mike:"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....
(the also meaning "in addition to creationism")and"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is a religion, so it should not be taught....
(the absence of an also meaning ONLY evolution)mean 2 different things. the first goes on to be a hypocritical statement, while the second is not. adding the also implies that he acknowledges that creationism is a religion. leaving the also out implies that he does not acknowledge creationism as a religion.to me it looks like you're putting words (a word) in his mouth... unless you shortened something he said with the [also]. does anyone else see this?