Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

On May 1, 5:08=A0pm, Allistar <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On May 1, 2:11=A0pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon
> > <misanthropiccurmudg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 11:09 am, Allistar <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > What has that got to do with evolution? Evolution is not the same
thi=
ng
> >> > as abiogenesis. You have your sciences mixed up.
>
> > But if you can't demonstrate/explain how non-living became living it
> > may be that the deductions that have made about unicellular
=A0organisms=

> > changing into more complex forms may also be wrong!
>
> They are different sciences - evolution is not the science of "non
living
> matter becoming living matter". Only the ignorant would suggest
otherwise.=

>
> And if we can't demonstrate how non-living became living - so what?
Scienc=
e
> can't explain everything .That's not a good reason to invent a "god of
the=

> gaps" to explain such mysteries.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Gladys has many things mixed up - dont forget that she sees no
> >> problems with the concept of continents racing accross the surface of
> >> the earth at a very visiable several feet a second. =A0She
steadfastly
> >> refuses to investigate the consequences of such a hypothesis (which
> >> stems from her creationist beliefs) like the amount of energy
> >> required, the concequences to both land or marine life, the complete
> >> lack of geological evidence for such an event....
>
> > My first knowledge of Pangaea came from helping a High school student
> > with his assignment. I still have the Science text that gave me the
> > information in my possession.
> > I =A0did not post to you =A0that the continents 'raced across the
surfac=
e
> > of the earth....'..
> > I gave the fact that they moved, (at what speed I do not know, but I
> > did give you some explanations in another posting quite some time ago)
> > from a Wikipedia article and a Creation on the web article which both
> > showed how the landforms may have moved apart..
> > The Bible does say =A0(Genesis 1 : 9) that 'the waters ...be gathered
> > together in one place and let the dry land appear' - possibly as one
> > land mass.
>
The question asked above is, "How did the peoples of the ancient
world
6 to 10 thousand years ago know that the land was in one place and the
seas flowed round it. Once the maps of the West African and the East
Americs coastlines was drawn following Columbus's crossing it was
ovious tha tthe coast line fitted much together as a jigsaw puzzle. It
also became obious how Australia and Antarctica fitted in.

> The Bible is a book of myths, and should be treated as such.
>
You would like the Bible to be ' a book of myths' so that you can
convince many more that evolution was the means by which living
organisms developed from simple ones to more complex ones. Naturalism
becomes your 'god'.

Evolutionists shy away from abiogenisis ( the theory or belief that
living things can be produced from non-living matter). The children's
text books give the information that one of the attributes of living
things is that they can procreate.
But if there is no superior living Being Who created originally then
you won't have any start to life at all. Some authors bring 'Mother
Nature' into the text but that is just 'Naturalism'.

> > How did the patriarchs know that when they weren't there at that time
> > and had no means of viewing all the seas flowing into each other as
> > they were about the land area?
> > That information was passed down to Moses possibly on clay tablets and
> > in oral traditions and was written down by him as writing skills
> > became known. .
>
> ...became known as the fairy stories and myths we now know them today.
> --
You are chanting your 'mantra' again.
Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the Bible although
obviously you would like everyone to accept your views.

Archaeology  Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content.view/3050/

Gladys Swager