Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> On May 1, 5:08 pm, Allistar <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> > On May 1, 2:11 pm, 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
>> >> > thing 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
 organisms
>> > 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?
>> Science 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.  She
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  did not post to you  that the continents 'raced across the
surface
>> > 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  (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.

People back then had many bizarre beliefs. Such as the world being flat.
About a flood covering "the highest mountain". About it being "turtles all
the way down". Science has shown these myths to be unfounded.

>> 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'.

A god is an unnecessary human construct. I don't have one and I don't need
one. I gave up invisible friends when I was a child. It's a pity more
adults can't do the same.

> Evolutionists shy away from abiogenisis ( the theory or belief that
> living things can be produced from non-living matter).

?? They are different sciences. Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution
is not abiogenesis.

> 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'.

You seem to be ruling out the possibility of living matter coming from non
living matter. You also seem to be sup****ting a theory that has no
scientific basis - it's based on faith and dogma rather than observable
reality. In that regard it's intellectually dishonest.

>> > 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 *****sment of the Bible although
> obviously you would like everyone to accept your views.

I appreciate that some people treat that particular book of myths as being
factual. I am continually confused as to why, but the fact they do remains
none-the-less. And I don't want everyone to drop those superstitions - I
just wish they didn't try and inflict them on everyone else. The world
would be a much more peaceful place.
-- 
A.