Welcome to the first Doggerel of 2007, where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.Often, woo trolls like to think that when we get riled up, it's because they're threatening our worldview or something. Usually, nothing could be further from the truth, since there are plenty of other reasons to get seriously annoyed with them:
First, we are not required to suffer fools lightly. If someone repeatedly spews out logical fallacies while demonstrating zero effort to actually comprehend a skeptic's stance on an issue, it's only natural to get angry. In this instance, it's kind of hard for them to be threatening to your stance if they don't bother learning what it is. You can't really threaten an idea if you don't know anything about it.
Second, a lot of the people who use this are shameless trolls, and often employ other troll techniques that get under our skin without contributing anything to the discussion: Copy-paste floods, "UR GAY"-type insults, all-caps, red herrings, etcetera. Sometimes rudeness is necessary to get a point across, but all of the above are unnecessary.
Third, if they want to threaten our worldview, it should be fairly easy: If we're defending a scientific theory, there are ways to falsify them. We know what it'd take to prove us wrong. If we don't accept their claim, they should probably see about applying for the Randi Challenge or conducting a similar experiment.
Of course, as I feel oddly compelled to point out all the time, this is another example of a subject change. Even if we do feel threatened, that doesn't change the soundness of our arguments.
---
Doggerel Index
94 comments:
Well spoken, Dog.
WOOF!
And the picture Rocks! It took me a few seconds to notice the little guy at the bottom, but it's great.
Sometime I need to dink around YouTube and see if someone's posted Colbert's take on that old story. It was really funny the first time I watched.
If someone repeatedly spews out logical fallacies while demonstrating zero effort to actually comprehend a skeptic's stance on an issue, it's only natural to get angry. In this instance, it's kind of hard for them to be threatening to your stance if they don't bother learning what it is. You can't really threaten an idea if you don't know anything about it.
Kinda a like a skeptic quoting a verse from the Bible when they do not care to at least read the chapter, let alone the book.
Second, a lot of the people who use this are shameless trolls, and often employ other troll techniques that get under our skin without contributing anything to the discussion: Copy-paste floods, "UR GAY"-type insults, all-caps, red herrings, etcetera. Sometimes rudeness is necessary to get a point across, but all of the above are unnecessary.
Oh yes, you are only allowed to do the above if you are a godless atheists.
Oh and only atheists are allowed to get mad too.
It's that one way street that the atheists are accustomed to.
Well, there are so many contradictions and interpretations out there, it's hard to keep track of whatever the Bible's saying today, much less predicting what it says tomorrow.
Here's an abridged version of the book of Joshua.
Oh yes, you are only allowed to do the above if you are a godless atheists.
Oh and only atheists are allowed to get mad too.
It's that one way street that the atheists are accustomed to.
What does that have to do with anything I've posted? Maybe I should have added "putting words into your opponent's mouths" to the list.
Well, there are so many contradictions and interpretations out there, it's hard to keep track of whatever the Bible's saying today, much less predicting what it says tomorrow.
Another example of logical fallacies while while demonstrating zero effort to actually comprehend.
Well, then, perhaps you'd like to get to work.
Yes, giving me the one-way sign again.
What else is new?
Let me guess, the "you are stupid I am smart" song again.
So, if I stayed silent, you would continue to say I didn't make any effort. If I give you an opportunity to explain yourself, it's the "one-way street", whatever that means.
Another example of logical fallacies while while demonstrating zero effort to actually comprehend.
Evidence please, Cocksnack?
I was simply making a point of the hipocritical statement you guys are always coming out with.
Evidence?
How about:
Well, there are so many contradictions and interpretations out there, it's hard to keep track of whatever the Bible's saying today, much less predicting what it says tomorrow.
It seems that you make no effort to even understand the Bible but somehow you cry (with your thumb in your mouth) about how we do not attempt to understand your position.
This is the well-known one-way street that evolutionists are accustomed to.
Another example is the way you keep crying for evidence and yet this whole thread made a bunch of assertions without any evidence.
Or the infamous holding a Christian to an ethical standard (and carefully watching for any sign of hypocrisy) that you have no interest in keeping yourself.
One way street
Must be nice.
If there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, how was I able to reference a list of them?
If the items on that list aren't contradictions, then you should be able to explain at least some of them.
It seems that you make no effort to even understand the Bible but somehow you cry (with your thumb in your mouth) about how we do not attempt to understand your position.
I'll ask again, and dumb it down for you:
1. Provide evidence I do not "understand" the bible. Do you mean I have to hold it in the same reverence that you do?
2. Provide evidence that I cry (with my thumb in my mouth) about how you do not attempt to understand my position.
Cocksnack wrote:
Kinda a like a skeptic quoting a verse from the Bible when they do not care to at least read the chapter, let alone the book.
Ever notice how those who usually complain about Bible verses being taken out of context are normally first in line to quote-mine the Qur'an in order to show how "bloodthirsty" muslims are?
It seems that you make no effort to even understand the Bible but somehow you cry (with your thumb in your mouth) about how we do not attempt to understand your position.
Apparently, all that "understanding" has led to this.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Denominations_and_Sects/
Now, how did I know that when this thread spawned 14 replies in one day, a certain idiotic troll had to have come by?
If you ever get fed up with him, BD, I'd recommend just doing what I did to get rid of him: Mock him mercilessly. You've already torn down all his arguments, and he's just repeating them at this point, so it's not like you're letting him get the last word in or anything.
And WoMI: If saying this causes you to come back to my blog, you're pathetic, predictable, and pathetically predictable.
(Sorry linky no worked. Just google "Christian denominations" and you'll get the idea.)
If there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, how was I able to reference a list of them?
If the items on that list aren't contradictions, then you should be able to explain at least some of them.
Well, I am sure you can google and find evidence for the existece of Santa Claus as well.
Try practicing what you preach and do some real research. Posting a link to someone that (like you) has ever attempted to read the Bible can hardly be considered research.
Singing the la-la song is not evidence neither.
1. Provide evidence I do not "understand" the bible. Do you mean I have to hold it in the same reverence that you do?
2. Provide evidence that I cry (with my thumb in my mouth) about how you do not attempt to understand my position.
1. Just read your posts.
2. Just look in the mirror.
If you ever get fed up with him, BD, I'd recommend just doing what I did to get rid of him: Mock him mercilessly.
Yes, apparently that is all you have left.
Thank you for proving again my point.
Do you realize how silly you look?
That website has the entire Bible plus commentary. The fact that it's part of "www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" should clue you in on that.
Further evidence that Weapon's not interested in debating, just whining.
I simply have better things to do than yell at deaf ears. Mocking said deaf ears is one of them.
"Try practicing what you preach and do some real research. Posting a link to someone that (like you) has ever attempted to read the Bible can hardly be considered research."
The fact that one does not believe the Bible doesn't mean they haven't read it. I've read books about Santa Claus too, as you might say.
But the fact that you can blithely claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible means that not only do you not understand it, not only have you not read it, but you haven't even read the first two chapters.
Genesis 1:25-27 - "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
God creates animals, then creates man.
Genesis 2:18-19 - "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
God creates man, then creates animals.
Maybe we just lack the magic understanding that allows Cocksnack to see no contradiction in those two passages, but not to see that his caricature of evolution is a strawman, but it sure seems to me that those are opposing statements. When did God make the animals, Cocksnack?
1. Just read your posts.
2. Just look in the mirror.
Again, provide evidence - I'm not doing the work for you. Link to something in my posts that specifically shows I do not understand the bible.
Cocksnack:
What do you want to get out of this, really? When you troll skeptical blogs under 10 different names, what purpose does it serve?
Do you think you're doing Jeebus' work and that by dropping us all a line to tell us about the fact Thor made us out of nothing is going to help you end up in that happy-happy land in the sky with your magic sky daddy?
Or do you have a secret forum where you and all the other obtuse obnoxious pricks hang out and jerk off to Mel Gibson interviews where you link to all the asshole comments you make on other people's blogs, like
WOMI: I totally got that Rockstar by telling him to look in the mirror!
Other xian asshole: Yeah, praise jeesus!
Seroiusly?
That website has the entire Bible plus commentary. The fact that it's part f "www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" should clue you in on that.
I am sorry to break it to you, but a skeptics version of the Bible can hardly be considered a Bible. At best it is a mockery which no serious theologian would take seriously.
Such a Bible exists only in the fanciful land of the Evolutionist.
But the fact that you can blithely claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible means that not only do you not understand it, not only have you not read it, but you haven't even read the first two chapters.
1. The Bible is the #1 best selling book every year. I guess all the contradictions you see are not taken very seriously.
2. When you read the Bible through, then I think you can lecture me about not reading the Bible.
I am sorry to break it to you, but a skeptics version of the Bible can hardly be considered a Bible. At best it is a mockery which no serious theologian would take seriously.
Such a Bible exists only in the fanciful land of the Evolutionist.
In other words, you've declared a certain book beyond criticism or commentary by a certain class of people? If so, why?
1. The Bible is the #1 best selling book every year. I guess all the contradictions you see are not taken very seriously.
Of course not. First, most people who buy a bible are unlikely to read it, or at least unlikely to read deeply enough. Second, reality and logical consistency are not determined by popularity, just like Chef's innocence was not determined by whether or not Chewbacca lives on Endor.
2. When you read the Bible through, then I think you can lecture me about not reading the Bible.
I don't see that list of contradictions isn't disappearing, even if the majority votes to ignore them or you posture with your allegedly deeper knowledge. Demonstrate that knowledge, don't just boast about it.
I am sorry to break it to you, but a skeptics version of the Bible can hardly be considered a Bible. At best it is a mockery which no serious theologian would take seriously.
It's not a skeptic's version - you didn't even check the link. It's the King James bible annotated by a skeptic.
Your quote in Chapter 2 gives is a summary of Chapter 1.
Let me guess, the Bible is not allowed to summarize nor repeat itself. So much for the chronicles which recounts the stories of
kings and the gospels which recount similar stories.
Simple glance at the context could easily allow you to see that:
Gen 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens
The purpose of chapter 2 is to give a more detail account of the creation of man in chapter 1. Of course you would not know this, since I doubt you ever attempted to read the whole chapter.
Again, provide evidence - I'm not doing the work for you. Link to something in my posts that specifically shows I do not understand the bible.
Sure. Let me ask you a basic question:
What was the Old testament illustration that Jesus used to illustrate his work in the cross to a prominent pharisee?
I give you 1 minute starting now. I will even allow you to google your answer if you need to (although if you had any basic knowledge you should not have to).
Read it again, Weapon.
I have a feeling this is going to turn into the series premiere of Star Trek: DS9: We're going to have to explain simple concepts like "before" and "after" to an alien mentality.
What do you want to get out of this, really? When you troll skeptical blogs under 10 different names, what purpose does it serve?
I appreciate the flatery in that you see my ghost in everything, but honestly I do not have the time nor the energy to keep up with 10 different aliases.
And speaking of evidence, you have no evidence for it. Serves to prove your cry-baby hipocrisy again.
I have a feeling this is going to turn into the series premiere of Star Trek: DS9: We're going to have to explain simple concepts like "before" and "after" to an alien mentality.
Well since you do not allow the Bible to summarize itself, maybe you can provide a quote from a theologian from any time in history that would consent to your assertion that new creation is taking place in chapter 2.
Good luck.
Not even the most liberal theologian who would not take Genesis 1-3 literally, would dare to consent to that.
I believe that your assertion exists only in the fanciful land of the evolutionist.
You speak as if it were flattery, and as if it somehow proves a point. Nice dodge with that pointless trivia question, too.
Sorry Rockstar Ryan, I graciously gave you more than 8 minutes and you still cannot provide an answer.
I know that you are there because your post was a recent one.
There is the evidence that you wanted.
Well since you do not allow the Bible to summarize itself...
Making stuff up, as usual.
maybe you can provide a quote from a theologian from any time in history that would consent to your assertion that new creation is taking place in chapter 2. Good luck. Not even the most liberal theologian who would not take Genesis 1-3 literally, would dare to consent to that. I believe that your assertion exists only in the fanciful land of the evolutionist.
Yeah. Appeal to authority. Let's go by what some people say about the bible, rather than actually look at what the bible says.
Sorry Rockstar Ryan, I graciously gave you more than 8 minutes and you still cannot provide an answer. I know that you are there because your post was a recent one. There is the evidence that you wanted.
You speak as if that proves anything of importance.
Do you think you're doing Jeebus' work and that by dropping us all a line to tell us about the fact Thor made us out of nothing is going to help you end up in that happy-happy land in the sky with your magic sky daddy?
Actually, it provides an interesting excercise whereby I can share with my friends and have a holy laugh at your comments.
Actually, it provides an interesting excercise whereby I can share with my friends and have a holy laugh at your comments.
Yeah. A holy laugh involves telling a lie about what we actually say, massive distractions designed to cover up a blatant contradiction, and then laughing when we point out that rhetorical trickery for all to see.
You speak as if that proves anything of importance.
It proves that he has no idea of basic stories in the Bible.
Hey, he asked for proof. If he is not aware of the most popular passages in Scripture, then his knowledge of the Bible is worth bragging about.
It also proves the hypocrisy of your post in requiring a perfect understanding of the ever changing position of evolutionists, when you care not to even understand our position let alone represent it accurately.
Actually, if you do not decide to censor your posts, what you state is open for everyone to read (and laugh).
First, most people who buy a bible are unlikely to read it, or at least unlikely to read deeply enough. Second, reality and logical consistency are not determined by popularity, just like Chef's innocence was not determined by whether or not Chewbacca lives on Endor.
Unfortunately, your comment has nothing to do with the current topic, but what else is new.
Smokescreen?
I don't see that list of contradictions isn't disappearing, even if the majority votes to ignore them or you posture with your allegedly deeper knowledge. Demonstrate that knowledge, don't just boast about it.
Yes and I am sure the evidence for the existence of Santa Clause will not disappear neither.
Anything is possible in the fanciful land of the evolutionist.
Sorry Ryan, it has been 25 minutes. If you do not have the answer by now, then I do not think you ever will.
I just love how he says, Anything is possible in the fanciful land of the evolutionist. Considering that the evolutionist bases their views on what they see, and can test, as opposed to a book written when people still thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that's rich.
It proves that he has no idea of basic stories in the Bible. Hey, he asked for proof. If he is not aware of the most popular passages in Scripture, then his knowledge of the Bible is worth bragging about. It also proves the hypocrisy of your post in requiring a perfect understanding of the ever changing position of evolutionists, when you care not to even understand our position let alone represent it accurately.
So, because Ryan didn't reply within an arbitrary time limit to an irrelevant question, does that mean the contradictions don't exist?
Unfortunately, your comment has nothing to do with the current topic, but what else is new. Smokescreen?
You do realize that post was specifically, and humorously accusing you of doing precisely that? It's called the Chewbacca defense: A deluge of non-sequiturs and red herrings designed to obfuscate the issue.
Ryan made a point, and since you couldn't pretend it away, you changed the subject to irrelevancies.
You're really metamorphosing as a troll.
Yes and I am sure the evidence for the existence of Santa Clause will not disappear neither. Anything is possible in the fanciful land of the evolutionist.
Only when you repeatedly ignore the fact that we've already labeled some things as impossible.
So, how do you deal with the list contradictions? You run all over the place and hope people just forget about them in the sea of irrelevancy you conjure.
Sorry Ryan, it has been 25 minutes. If you do not have the answer by now, then I do not think you ever will.
That's it, just keep on changing the subject. Don't want anyone to keep bringing up Ryan's point and rubbing your face in it: Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other.
(Note that there is absolutely zero reference to summarization: Weapon, of course, made that smokescreen up entirely and is currently hoping that no one notices.)
Considering that the evolutionist bases their views on what they see, and can test, as opposed to a book written when people still thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that's rich.
Show me an evolutionist that has seen the big bang or that has observed one taxon order change to another (let alone test it) and then I may take you more seriously. Otherwise I will dismiss it as wishful thinking at best.
So, because Ryan didn't reply within an arbitrary time limit to an irrelevant question, does that mean the contradictions don't exist?
Not exactly (nice smokescreen); that is still up for debate. What it does mean that his knowledge of the Bible is not very impressive seeing that he cannot even recount one of the most popular passages of Scripture.
He asked for evidence that demonstrated his ignorance of the Bible and I gave him the rope to hang himself.
So, how do you deal with the list contradictions? You run all over the place and hope people just forget about them in the sea of irrelevancy you conjure.
Yes. Especially when you are too scared to even pick one which you want to discuss.
I see what Cocksnack is doing, and I'll point out how silly and childish it is.
I said "provide evidence I don't understand the bible". I never said "I have the bible memorized".
Cocksnack: do you understand cars? By your childish posts I don't know if you are old enough to drive, but I'll assume you can comprehend the concept of a "car".
Now off the top of your surely misshapen head, do you know what your primary form of automobile ancillary power is? Probably not.
The Amazing One himself told me that my psychic challenge was out of line; the psychic never claimed they could see what was in an envelope on my TV set. (I told him it was a joke anyway).
In much the same way I never claimed to know specific bible verses.
We now return to mocking you.
Note that there is absolutely zero reference to summarization: Weapon, of course, made that smokescreen up entirely and is currently hoping that no one notices.
I forgot that for you, since you cannot identify a summary, one has to spell it out for you. Apparently, for you context is insufficient.
Well since you do not allow the Bible to summarize itself, maybe you can provide a quote from a theologian from any time in history that would consent to your assertion that new creation is taking place in chapter 2.
Good luck.
Not even the most liberal theologian who would not take Genesis 1-3 literally, would dare to consent to that.
I believe that your assertion exists only in the fanciful land of the evolutionist.
Show me an evolutionist that has seen the big bang or that has observed one taxon order change to another (let alone test it) and then I may take you more seriously. Otherwise I will dismiss it as wishful thinking at best.
Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background radiation?
Ever see a magic stop sign that would prevent existing mechanisms from adding up to a taxon order change?
Not exactly (nice smokescreen); that is still up for debate. What it does mean that his knowledge of the Bible is not very impressive seeing that he cannot even recount one of the most popular passages of Scripture.
He asked for evidence that demonstrated his ignorance of the Bible and I gave him the rope to hang himself.
You missed out on the phrase "arbitrary time limit." You do realize it's entirely possible he left before even seeing your question, right. We do have lives, you know. And since mine needs tending to, temporary pause, plus deletions of further diversions from a key point.
If you want to get through, try posting something meaningful.
In much the same way I never claimed to know specific bible verses.
Well, I am glad you finally admit your ignorance of the Bible.
Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background radiation?
Yes I have. A theory from which is about to fall apart due to its lack of shadows.
But are you saying that you've seen something evolved from a cosmic microwave or is this another smokescreen that you are throwing out?
Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background radiation?
Yes I have. A theory from which is about to fall apart due to its lack of shadows.
There's a difference between evidence and a theory. Besides, got a better explanation for that radiation? Also, why would it have shadows?
But are you saying that you've seen something evolved from a cosmic microwave or is this another smokescreen that you are throwing out?
So I couldn't resist biting your subject change (read "smokescreen") to Big Bang cosmology. Sue me.
Now, about those contradictory chapters of Genesis...
"Well since you do not allow the Bible to summarize itself, maybe you can provide a quote from a theologian from any time in history that would consent to your assertion that new creation is taking place in chapter 2."
If you actually read what was said (something which you and your type of people seem to have a hard time doing) you will see that no one said anything about a new creation. Rather, it was pointed out that the Bible presents two contradicting versions of the same creation. In one version, we have A then B then C. In the next version we have A then C then B.
If this was simply a summarization, we would have the first version: A happened on this day at this time and was done in this way and there was much rejoicing. Then B happened at this time on this day and was done like so. Then C happened at this time on this day in this particular way... Our second version would then be A then B then C.
This is a summarization. Please note tht there is no contradiction between the two versions, only simplification. Unlike the Bible.
Weapon: Have you read the Bible? I now challenge you to prove that this is so, and I'll be even more lenient than you by a factor of ten.
Within the next ten minutes, please explain the context of Jesus' "Render unto Caesar..." quote. Or, if you want, simply give the full quote as it appears in whatever version you read. This one is even a quite famous quote, so you should have no trouble.
Okay, comment moderation is up, so I can't confirm that it's completely fair that we start counting from the time I submitted it, but it's definitely up at the time I submitted this. If I were to act like Weapon, however, I'd already be gloating.
Oh, WoMI, you are entertaining in your own way.
Thank you, I try.
And there you have it. By his own standards (hell, by more lenient standards), Weapon has proved that he himself has never read the Bible. I rest my case.
I'm still wating for Cocksnack to explain the list of contradictions with out dodging the question.
Wow. I go on vacation for three days and he hits again, dumber than ever. This Weapon creature is prolific. I do so wish he would post all of his thoughts in one post. I wonder if he does that just to pad the number of posts. In any case, he's getting less and less amusing.
The purpose of chapter 2 is to give a more detail account of the creation of man in chapter 1. Of course you would not know this, since I doubt you ever attempted to read the whole chapter.
Actually, I have read the whole chapter. And sure, the Bible can summarize itself. It can go right ahead with that. The problem is that in the summary, it gets things out of order. If I read you Charlotte's Web, and then I summarize it by saying "Okay, so Charlotte dies, and then Wilbur comes to the farm," I've gotten the summary wrong. When you summarize a plot, the events still have to happen in the same order. Genesis 1 says unequivocally that God created animals before he created humans. Genesis two unequivocally says the opposite. This is not a matter of giving a more detailed account of the same events; it's a matter of directly contradicting the events as they were initially described. They cannot both be right.
By the way, most non-literalist theologians will tell you that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different and separate creation myths from two different Hebrew tribes. One features the god Eloi ("Elohim" is the plural), the other features Yahweh. Genesis 2 is the earlier myth, in which God interacts directly with his creation, walks through the garden, etc., while Genesis 1 is the creation story of a later tribe (which eventually assimilated the other tribe's myth into their own mythology), where God is less personal and creates things by speaking them into existence.
But somehow I think the idea that the Bible has a history is going to go right over your head.
I like how not having a whole book memorized means that someone doesn't understand it (or is somehow evidence that they haven't read it).
By his own standards (hell, by more lenient standards), Weapon has proved that he himself has never read the Bible. I rest my case.
I'm glad there's only one Cocksnack here...
Do you see why, when you behave this way, you are being obtuse, ignorant and obnoxious?
One enthymeme I seem to be picking up: Weapon seems to be claiming, somewhere in between the lines, that reading the whole bible makes it possible to interpret the contradictions in a way that they aren't contradictions.
Of course, to do so would mean giving up literal interpretations.
That's always been my point;
Where's the guide that says "take this literally, but interpret this verse".
If god meant something, why not just say it?
Or as Tom brings up, how can one assume anything written is the way it was initially "supposed" to be interpreted because of the history of the phyisical text of the bible (no WOMI not the supposed history contained with-in the texts of the bible, 2 different things)?
Do you see why, when you behave this way, you are being obtuse, ignorant and obnoxious?
As you well know, its hard to post when comment moderation is on. So if you want an immediate answer, you might want to first make sure that your monkey friend does not have comment moderation on.
Your ignorance betrays you.
I'm still wating for Cocksnack to explain the list of contradictions with out dodging the question.
Why won't you try picking one and inserting your own observations. I do not have time to write volumes on every objection that you monkeys can come up with. If you were as deligent in doing honest research as you are as googling a list of contradictions created by likeminded atheists then I am sure that this debate would advance better.
That above post was in limbo (couldn't look at it before attempting to approve/reject it) and only came out because I had to briefly turn off moderation, and I have no idea when he typed it in.
Of course, Weapon doesn't really answer anything at all with it. He's about as coherent as the latest cartoon I linked to.
Of course, being (deliberately?) obtuse, ignorant, and obnoxious in efforts to avoid a direct and simple question and posting like that several times in a row is one way to get me to turn comment moderation on.
So, Weapon, since you can't flood us away, try making one thoughtful comment at a time, rather than a stream of disjointed ones.
Genesis two unequivocally says the opposite. This is not a matter of giving a more detailed account of the same events; it's a matter of directly contradicting the events as they were initially described. They cannot both be right.
Well, Tom Fuss, I congratulate you for at least trying to have a coherent dialogue. This more than can be said about your monkey friends.
However, you provide no verse that indicates that animals were created before humans from Genesis chapter two. You might need to explain a little further how on earth you can come up with such a conclusion when nowhere in chapter two does it say that God created man before he created the animals.
Why won't you try picking one and inserting your own observations. I do not have time to write volumes on every objection that you monkeys can come up with. If you were as deligent in doing honest research as you are as googling a list of contradictions created by likeminded atheists then I am sure that this debate would advance better.
Sounds like Weapon is admitting the English language changes when someone like him reads it. The one example contradiction hasn't changed.
Posted by Ryan:
Genesis 1:25-27 - "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
God creates animals, then creates man.
Genesis 2:18-19 - "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
God creates man, then creates animals.
Weapon's been caught again, and will probably never know it.
Tom Russ, if you want an answer to your post you are going to have to come to my blog.
I've left Weapon a note on his home turf, essentially reposting Ryan's summary with a little commentary at the end, so he can't dodge it.
His 'answer' thus far seems to have been reposting a bunch of this thread as context. Presumably he'll get to the *ahem* devastating truth in time.
Tom Russ, if you want an answer to your post you are going to have to come to my blog.
That's just sad. Is that the only way you can get traffic to your pathetic blog?
For someone who claims an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible and criticizes others for not being able to read, it's amazing how wrong you keep getting my name.
And for someone who, just a few days ago, criticized me for linking to outside material rather than cutting and pasting short snippet articles proving you wrong on every count about evolution, because you found it ridiculous that you might have to click a link to get information, I don't see why I should go to your blog to get an answer.
Then again, hypocrisy is to be expected from you. After all, you, the king of long cut-and-paste quote mines, said "It's nice that you know how to cut and paste so proficiently considering that you came from a monkey.
But when you evolve enough to have something original to say, let me know."
I see your blog. I see no answer to my question. I see you criticizing me for not quoting (non sequitur), claiming that Hebrew tribes never existed (shooting yourself in the foot), doing whatever the opposite of an appeal to popularity is (how many theologians, do you think, are literalists? I'll give you a hint, it's probably fewer than those who know that there's an actual history to the Bible), and ignoring the fact that my criticism specifically deals with what the Bible says of itself.
And you still have not addressed that.
Sorry for the long double-post, but the quickest of Google searches turned up this page. It's all good reading, but specifically this passage:
Genesis, in fact, moves between two very different creation stories. The first, as cited above, introduces the Elohim, or council of gods, moving over the primordial sea and creating order out of chaos. In the second creation story, beginning in Genesis 2: 4, we are introduced to another God called YHWH (I AM), which is translated as LORD within the text. The following text comes directly after the first creation and seems juxtaposed onto the first:
[...]
Modern scholars feel quite certain that the two creation stories came from two sources, the first from what scholars call the "E" source (those sources that use the term Elohim) and the second from a source which scholars call "J" (from sources that use Jehovah or Yahweh as their name for God).
According to Richard E. Friedman’s book Who Wrote the Bible (see link), the two sources, both Y and E (among others), were assembled when the northern tribes of Israel were fleeing foreign occupation and entered Judah, bringing their oral histories with them. Judah was in the south and constitutes the southern tribe. These two oral traditions were then combined forming the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a compilation of many stories and traditions from both northern and southern tribes. There is ample evidence for this, as Richard E. Friedman explains beautifully. This “dual-kingdom” theory may be the simplest explanation to why there are two very different creation stories placed back-to-back in Genesis.
Here's another. I think I may have made a mistake earlier, it's Genesis 1 which uses "Elohim" as the name of God (technically gods, "Eloah" is the singular form, associated with chief Canaanite god El. But you probably deny the existence of the Canaanites as well). Genesis 2 used YHWH, aka Yahweh or Jehovah, which, when written with vowels, literally means "Lord God."
But, again, you're anti-clicking, so you won't see even the sparsest evidence for any of that.
I wonder, though, how someone who claims to know the Bible inside and out could deny the existence of Hebrew tribes. I'd think the "twelve tribes of Israel" would ring a few bells to someone as knowledgable as yourself.
If you were as deligent in doing honest research as you are as googling a list of contradictions created by likeminded atheists...
I love the "do your own research" thing. Here's how to do a debate, dumbed down for cocksnack:
Skeptics:
1. Presented argument There are many contradictions in the bible.
2. Presented evidence See Genesis quotes, I'm not re-re-posting.
At this point, we are done. No further research is required.
Cocksnack:
1. Presented argument The Bible is infallible; there are no contradictions
2. Presented evidence Do some research.
Done. Please see Skeptic point # 2.
Make sense? Give us a reason for further research or go away.
If you were as deligent in doing honest research as you are as googling a list of contradictions created by likeminded atheists then I am sure that this debate would advance better.
Yawn.
Cocksnack, that is not an answer to the question, that again is another dodge. Are you a Character from Dickens?
His current rebuttal, summarized, seems to be 'only a complete tool would think that because the passage says things happened, they happened in the order they appear in that passage'.
I'm paraphrasing of course. His actual arguments have 8 points, many of which boil down to argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
There's nothing artful to Cocksnack's dodges. Here's his "answer" from his site:
1. I have read that portion of Scripture an inumerable passage of times and that objection has never come close to entering my mind.
Argument from ignorance. "I never noticed it, and I notice everything, therefore it doesn't happen."
2. I have discipled an enumerable amount of people and when they read it for the first (or 20th) time they never demonstrated a concern for it.
Argument from popularity/from others' ignorance. "They never noticed it, and they notice everything, QED."
3. It seems that only those that would like to destroy the credibility of the Bible can find fault in such an area where a fault genuinely does not exist.
Circular reasoning, ad hominem, no true Scotsman. Efficient use of fallacies.
4. For you to say that animals were created after man simply because a reference to their creation is mentioned after a detail account of the creation of man is as much as scandalous as to say that animals are the helpmeet of man simply because their creation is mentioned right after God says that man needs a help meet for him.
No, it says "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
Here's the series of events dumbed down for you.
1. God creates Adam.
2. God thinks it is bad that Adam does not have a helper.
3. God says 'I will make man a helper.'
4. "The LORD God formed every beast."
5. Then, God brought the animals to Adam for naming.
God creates the animals ("and...formed") as a direct solution to the problem of Adam's lack of helpers. If Adam were created later, the problem which caused God to "form" the animals would not have existed, and would not have given him the impetus to form them. In this narrative, God plans to do something, then he does it. It's not "God brought the animals, which he had already created, to Adam," it's "and...the Lord God formed." Words like "and," used in this context, denote a sequence of events.
5. Even in a 5 minute newsflash of current events: just because the reporter reports the events in a matter of importance does not suggest that the events happen in the order it was mentioned. Apparently there is a double standard here.
No, it's a simple matter of cause and effect.
Cause: Adam needs a helper.
Effect: God makes animals.
You'll never see a news report where the effect precedes cause, unless they state that explicitly. For instance, you will never see this:
"George Bush died today. And he contracted meningitis."
Although you could see this:
"George Bush died today as a result of contracting meningitis a few weeks prior."
Now, if Genesis 2 said "God brought the animals he had created days ago to Adam, in order to solve the problem," there would be no contradiction. Instead it says 'God sees a problem. And to solve the problem, he creates animals.' That's a series of events, contradicting the previously given order. It's not a matter of summarizing two unrelated things, it's a problem and solution, it's a causal pair.
6. This is not anymore of a valid argument than an evolutionist speaking on homosapiens and then making a passing statement on the evolution of flowers and I interpreting his comment to mean that the flower evolved after man.
If the 'evolutionist' says "yada yada and man evolved. And flowers evolved to solve problem X that man had," then you're right. But it's more likely that the 'evolutionist' is comparing or contrasting or otherwise connecting similar events in plant and person evolution. Genesis 2 isn't comparing similar problems faced by Adam and the animals, it's presenting the animals as the proposed solution to Adam's problem.
7. In short, the passage does not state that animals were created after man. Such an outlandish statement can only be suggested through inference but not by internal biblical evidence.
No, you have it backwards. It never says anything about summary, nor does it say anything about animals introduced as a non sequitur to Adam's problem. The words on the page, the "literal" interpretation, is what leads to contradiction. It's only by making your inferences--that it's a summary, that the events are not listed in order with causal and sequential language for a reason--that you can arrive at a non-contradictory interpretation.
8. No serious theologian hold to such a view. I do not even know if the most liberal theologian would take such a position. If one were found, he would definititely be in the lower 1%.
Argumentum ad populum again, and I sense some argument from ignorance in there too. And a clear use of the No True Scotsman if ever there was one. Do a little bit of research, as you're fond of exhorting others to do. I think you'll find, if you look outside your literalist bubble, that most serious theologians *do* see a contradiction there. But most serious theologians also view the books as some degree of allegory, and most know a little about how the various books came together (whether or not they believe in divine inspiration), so they don't find a problem in the apparent contradiction.
It's only the wee little faith of a literalist that has such a problem.
Not that it matters either way. Whether one person believes it or a billion, the 'literal' contradiction is still present, and you still have not addressed it, except to wish it away.
You'll never see a news report where the effect precedes cause, unless they state that explicitly. For instance, you will never see this:
"George Bush died today. And he contracted meningitis."
Although you could see this:
"George Bush died today as a result of contracting meningitis a few weeks prior."
Well, there is the odd case where the broadcast screws up. Take one of the possible impetuses for "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead":
The phrase may also come from The Today Show, which was then live in New York from 7 to 9 a.m., but in Chicago they ran the second hour live at 7 a.m. Chicago time, then ran the first hour from tape at 8 a.m. Chicago time (i.e. swapping the hours). In New York during the first hour the show reported that he was near death, and during that hour learned that he died, so started the second hour off with that news. That meant Chicago viewers saw first that he was dead at 7 a.m., and "near death" at 8 a.m. Realizing the problem, the network scrambled to get a live feed to Chicago making it clear that Franco was, in fact, still very much dead. [taken from Wikipedia]
There's nothing artful to Cocksnack's dodges. Here's his "answer" from his site:
True. I was being generous. Must have been some spot insanity. I doubt we'll get any answers to the questions we've all asked and you've done a fine job addressing Tom. The longer we go the deeper his head is buried in the sand and his ears are filling with the sounds of himself choking.
Wow, this Weapon of Mass Destruction guy is... special or something.
It's odd, given the content of the post, that people here have engaged WoMI as if he were sane, intelligent, or honest.
It's fun, in kind of the way that an infuriating puzzle game is. The difference is that we all know Weapon loves rendering himself unsolvable by completely ignoring the reality of our posts.
I have to feel that we are like a trickle of water. If we stop, nothing will be done. But perhaps if we keep trickling across WoMI, we will eventually bore down into his brain and force him to recognize his own ignorance and inability to argue.
Unfortunately, that's probably going to take several hundred thousand years.
And we all know Jeebus will come back before then anyway
That's what you call the fanciful land of the evolutionists.
Anymore, when I read WoMI's posts, this is pretty much what I hear.
Yeah, that's about where he's gotten, Tom. Especially since he never makes any meaningful comment about what we say. Sure, he'll copy-paste some bits, but what he says immediately after the copy-paste looks more like an automated, uncomprehending response based on key words.
Post a Comment