Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[PsychoSarah]

When my wife asked me last week, 'What happened when you took our 2 grandchildren to the school dentist? What was the outcome?' On the basis of DogmaHunter's argumentation, my eyewitness testimony would be 'the least reliable type of witness'. There were only two adult eyewitnesses at the mobile dentist's van - the dentist and me. The dentist can give eyewitness testimony to what went on in my grandchildren's mouths. I can give eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after those events.

Believe me, those eyewitness testimonies are reliable in giving an overall summary of what happened. It is hogwash to say that my eyewitness testimony to what happened before and after the dental visit is 'the least reliable type of evidence'.

Your example is superb. Regularly on the TV news, police are asking for others who saw the events surrounding an accident or some other event to which they were called. Eyewitness testimony is used regularly to help solve criminal investigations.

Oz

Yet, eyewitness testimony from 1 person is not considered sufficient to convict, while DNA evidence by itself can. One of the issues with eyewitness testimony, is that it dies with the witness. Without a LIVING witness, the testimony is useless. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony for your dental visit is still very unreliable for important details, and decays over time. For example, if one of your grandchildren got fillings, and I asked you about it that day, you could probably remember which child got them, and how many they got, but even on that same day, you might not remember which teeth. Unless you make an effort to remember, a month later, you might forget how many fillings they got, and a year later, which kid got them in the first place. And the books in the bible were not written as the events were happening, but DECADES after, and between the supposed events and them being written down, the witnesses died, and the stories were passed around by word of mouth in a telephone game. So, if your dental bill said 4 fillings, but the kid only got 3, the best evidence, if you took it to court, is not your claim that you saw the kid only get 3, but the fact the kid only has 3 fillings in their mouth.

With enough time, a story that is just supposed to be a metaphor for a moral can be treated as an actual event, because the people that remember the story's origins are long dead. Additionally, people lie to feel important, so who knows how much of the verbal stories going around even originated from actual eye witnesses, and how many came from people that flat out lied.

 

[Gene2memE]

A person who is an historian can report an eyewitness testimony. But for you to accept such a view, it would shatter the view you are pushing here.

I have formal (university level) education in history and have conducted quite a few eyewitness interviews for a couple of research projects. Historians are acutely aware of just how faulty human recollection can be, even just minutes after a particular event has occurred. I have personal knowledge of just how disparate, even outright contradictory, first hand eyewitness accounts can be.

For example, my long-term area of personal research is air combat in WW2. To claim a kill on an enemy fighter or bomber, pilots of most air forces were required to submit a claim in writing. In the air forces of the US and UK and to a lesser extent Germany, these claims were verified against gun camera footage, wingman/fellow squadron member accounts and through interviews with intelligence officers after returning from a mission.

At the very best, combat pilots claimed three kills for every two aircraft that were actually either shot down or damaged. A more common ratio during WW2 was better than two claims for every one actual shoot down. For the Soviet, Italian and Japanese air forces, that ratio is generally better than three to one.

These were pilots that were trained for this purpose, engaged in a singular activity with supporting witnesses and evidence. Yet, their actual ability to accurately match real kills on enemy fighters was no better than 66%, and generally worse than 50%.

As someone who has attempted to reconstruct particular air combats from first hand interviews, personal accounts, diaries, intelligence reports, combat films and media reports, I know that it is almost impossible to eliminate contradictions between eyewitness accounts.

I've had pilots tell me flat out that they didn't fly on this or that particular mission. Yet, when I've shown them after action reports, complete will kill claims, they they typed up themselves, they will have their memory jogged about it. I've also had pilot tell me straight out contradictory accounts of the same mission in interviews no more than a few weeks apart.

Eyewitness testimony, while interesting and important in history, is not shattering in the slightest. If you interview 10 people about something they've personally witnessed, you're going to get more than 10 partially contradictory accounts.

 

[OzSpen]

Eyewitness testimony, while interesting and important in history, is not shattering in the slightest. If you interview 10 people about something they've personally witnessed, you're going to get more than 10 partially contradictory accounts.

Try telling that to the police in my country. They haven't given up on obtaining eyewitness testimony that they present in court to provide evidence for jury and judge.

I have a PhD in historical Jesus' studies, so I've done my fair share of investigation into the reliability or otherwise of eyewitness testimony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please tell me how you are going to objectively describe extraordinary claims without an extraordinary, supernatural God?

Errr... what?
I don't understand this question.

However, your worldview won't allow for this God.

My worldview simply doesn't include things that can't be shown or supported to be real, or things that simply aren't reasonable.

In that sense, my worldview doesn't allow for gods, just like it doesn't allow for unicorns and centaurs.

Therefore, we cannot have a reasonable discussion when you automatically exclude some of the evidence for the supernatural God.

What evidence? I haven't seen you present any evidence.
If you think "eyewitness accounts" are evidence, I have news for you: they aren't.
Eyewitness accounts are ....-drumroll-.... claims.

You are engaging in a question begging fallacy.

No. Rather, you are asking me to "just believe" claims without evidence. Extra-ordinary things that don't sound reasonable at all. Without evidence.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

There's nothing fallacious about asking for evidence for a claim before accepting the claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not so. The police in my country call for eyewitness testimony.

And if that police gets their hands on physical evidence that doesn't agree with the testimony, the physical evidence wins and the testimony is considered false / a lie.

Of course, all evidence available needs to be examined, but eyewitness testimony is considered of considerable value.

The least value. More then no evidence at all, less then physical evidence.

People lie. People make mistakes. People can be mal-informed.
But physical evidence is what it is.

Physical evidence of a person being in Arizona at 8 pm on the 12th of october, 2015 excludes that person from being in New York at 8 pm on the 12th of october, 2015 - no matter what a claimed "eyewitness" from New York says.

Physical evidence trumps testimony. Always.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Try telling that to the police in my country. They haven't given up on obtaining eyewitness testimony that they present in court to provide evidence for jury and judge.

And when the defence then comes up with physical evidence that contradicts those testimonies, those testimonies are instantly discarded. And there might even be follow up to see if the testimonies were falsified on purpose.

Because physical evidence trumps testimony. Every. Single. Time.

 

[OzSpen]

Errr... what?
I don't understand this question.

My worldview simply doesn't include things that can't be shown or supported to be real, or things that simply aren't reasonable.

You have erected a straw man fallacy. You have invented what I did not say. You have created your own evidence which I do not support.

In that sense, my worldview doesn't allow for gods, just like it doesn't allow for unicorns and centaurs.

You are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule. You have replaced evidence with your mockery.

What evidence? I haven't seen you present any evidence.
If you think "eyewitness accounts" are evidence, I have news for you: they aren't.
Eyewitness accounts are ....-drumroll-.... claims.

That's because you refuse to accept the supernatural evidence provided in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Book of Acts. Here we have your imposition of your worldview to try to obliterate the evidence. Fancy 'drumrolls' don't snuff out supernatural evidence.

No. Rather, you are asking me to "just believe" claims without evidence. Extra-ordinary things that don't sound reasonable at all. Without evidence.

That is a fallacious claim. I have never asked you to 'just believe' without evidence. Christianity is faith founded on fact.

Because of your fallacious reasoning, we have no grounds for further discussion. When you continue to engage in the use of logical fallacies, we see your illogic in action.

Bye, Bye

 

[OzSpen]

And if that police gets their hands on physical evidence that doesn't agree with the testimony, the physical evidence wins and the testimony is considered false / a lie.



The least value. More then no evidence at all, less then physical evidence.

People lie. People make mistakes. People can be mal-informed.
But physical evidence is what it is.

Physical evidence of a person being in Arizona at 8 pm on the 12th of october, 2015 excludes that person from being in New York at 8 pm on the 12th of october, 2015 - no matter what a claimed "eyewitness" from New York says.

Physical evidence trumps testimony. Always.

You have invented more straw man fallacies.

Bye

 

[HitchSlap]

My suggestion is for you to stop presupposing all creation stories are a myth, and at least start considering that one ... just one ... might be bona fide history.

It's not a presupposition if you have evidence to the contrary.
I suggest you profer actual evidence, as special pleading will get you nowhere. Out of curiosity, how did you determine your creation myth was more likely than any other?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a presupposition if you have evidence to the contrary.

You have evidence to the contrary of theistic evolution?

I highly doubt that.

If so, let's see it.

Theistic evolutionists look at the same evidence you do, and conclude evolution is how it happened.

Are you saying you have evidence that theistic evolution is a myth?

 

[HitchSlap]

You have evidence to the contrary of theistic evolution?

I highly doubt that.

If so, let's see it.

Theistic evolutionists look at the same evidence you do, and conclude evolution is how it happened.

Are you saying you have evidence that theistic evolution is a myth?

There's a reason they're called creation myths. We have the evidence.

 

[-57]

You have evidence to the contrary of theistic evolution?

I highly doubt that.

If so, let's see it.

Theistic evolutionists look at the same evidence you do, and conclude evolution is how it happened.

Are you saying you have evidence that theistic evolution is a myth?

The bible itself, that is the theology in the bible...is contrary of theistic evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible itself, that is the theology in the bible...is contrary of theistic evolution.

And the point of this is? We already know that Genesis is just a book of morality tales at best. There is no reason to believe that any of the tales in Genesis ever happened and tons of evidence against almost all of the stories.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a reason they're called creation myths. We have the evidence.

If you have what theistic evolutionists don't have ... let's see it.

Anyone can call Genesis 1 a myth.

Anyone can call Genesis 1 a myth, based on scientific evidence.

Let's see what you have that theistic evolutionists don't have.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible itself, that is the theology in the bible...is contrary of theistic evolution.

I'm aware of that.

I'm just playing the part of a theistic evolutionist here; since they seem to be pretty quiet at the moment.

I guess you could say I'm showing them how to do myth busting with their own theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the point of this is? We already know that Genesis is just a book of morality tales at best. There is no reason to believe that any of the tales in Genesis ever happened and tons of evidence against almost all of the stories.

Let's see one against Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist pov then.

 

[-57]

I'm aware of that.

I'm just playing the part of a theistic evolutionist here; since they seem to be pretty quiet at the moment.

I guess you could say I'm showing them how to do myth busting with their own theology.

I was scratching my head at your remarks.

There are many verses. For example: Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

It's the one man argument...Theo-evoism insist there was a population prior to Adam.

Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Thanks to Acts we can add to the one man argument. Theo-Evoism would once again have to disagree.

In Pauls letter to Timothy we read....1st Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

Once again in direct contradiction to the Theo-Evo views.

....there's more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see one against Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist pov then.

For what purpose? I am not a theistic evolution believer so I would not be one to ask. Don't ask me ask someone that believes in that. This group is probably made up of people that accept some sort of theistic evolution:

http://biologos.org/

 

[AV1611VET]

....there's more.

Again, let me make it clear that I am not a theistic evolutionist.

I'm just a little surprised that theistic evolutionists are letting HitchSlap's remark slide without challenging it.

 

[AV1611VET]

For what purpose?

Catch up, chief.

I'm calling HitchSlap out on post 189.