Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Well, that may or may not be true, but there do certainly appear to be errors. Leviticus 11 talks about insects creeping on all fours. For very obvious reasons, insects do not creep on all fours. That book, if I recall correctly, also describes bats as birds. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I think where people get confused is when people insist that the Bible is the word of an inerrant God and then allow for the text which is supposed to be his word to be interpreted.Earlier you wrote: But in this last comment you allow for explanation. If people are the ones doing the explaining, then how can you be certain they're perfect in their explanations and that the word is thus being perfectly transmitted to you? Flies creep on all fours? Huh? Right...fowl. Sorry. Okay, I see that point, but that brings us back up to my point above I think.And so then when Leviticus in the KJV talks about fowls that creep on all fours, it is talking about bats?Is the hare chewing its cud also a translation error? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I'm pretty sure all six. A quick search didn't turn up flies walking on four...and I definitely don't remember them mentioning it in college or grad school bio classes.Do you have citations for flies walking on four legs? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Creationist wrote: tthzr3 replied: From the perspective of humans, facts are observations with error. The objective truth of what is being observed (what we often like to think of as the fact) isn't something we get to. There are always error bars, even if they are vanishingly small. Facts are absolutely interpreted.

I'm hoping this isn't off topic...I don't think it is. You've probably made this clear somewhere else along the line, but I didn't read it. So I'll ask you to indulge me. Do you have thoughts on the age of the earth and if so, how old do you think our little oblate spheroid is?

Huh...that gives me some questions I'd like to ask. I suppose that would have to be a new thread.

But there's always error associated with the observations. Here the word "just" is where the error lies. The sentence, as written, does not ensure that I will interpret "just" in the same manner you do. With this amount of information, I don't have any way of determining how much time "just" represents. Actually, I think "before" can be interpreted as well. The act of putting quotes around the word rock shows that you understand that the word requires interpretation. I contend, however, that even if you remove the quotes the word rock requires interpretation. Your definition of rock and mine might be different, and indeed, I would take the odds that they are. Not only that, but this sentence, as written, allows for interpretations in space and time. Where are you taking about the a rock existing? That might be debatable. When are you talking about a rock existing? That might also be open to scrutiny. So, yes, it is a "fact" that a rock exists, but there is absolutely error involved in this fact. I need to interpret various aspects of this sentence and there's no ensuring that I'm going to hit your precise meaning.

I think we might be able to go the:Sedimentary Structures which Disprove Young Earth and Flood Geologythread which was created late last week. Instead of starting yet another new thread, wanna start there?

http://EvC Forum: Sedimentary Structures which Disprove Young Earth and Flood Geology -->EvC Forum: Sedimentary Structures which Disprove Young Earth and Flood GeologyI'll repost over there, but my initial question is:are you familiar with what a lake varve is?

Okay, so in your view, how do they form?

Yeah...Creationist, the thread I pointed you to is still in proposed topics. I'll open a new one.