🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
news:Rx2Ad.1636812$SM5.132115@news.easynews.com...
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>>> When a species determines its level of awareness, either morally, 
>>> scientifically, or otherwise it is always pertinent to examine the 
>>> process and see if it is inherently representative of the biases of its 
>>> authors.
>>
>>
>> The problem for the Creationists is that the scientific method simply 
>> works whether one believes in it or not, while a belief in the Bible or 
>> in God as the Creator is a circular argument, with no basis whatsoever in 
>> fact.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> It strikes me there is still a significant, though rather tattered, 
> re-translated, even maddeningly incomplete transcribed record of our 
> origins, one measured in the eye of the day, both ethical and societal.
>
> In essence the Bible, and its root scrolls, are early science 
> (observation) and history all pasted together.

**No. There is no science of any recognisable kind in the Bible. There is 
some history, some poetry and some philosophy. There is a good deal of 
hysterical ranting too. There's no science.

>
> That the record is incomplete in spots, contradictory in others, yet oddly 
> coincident across diverse geographically isolated populations indeed hints 
> at a root commonality that is compelling.

**Really? Explain the commonality between, say, Australian Aboriginals, 
Hindu scriptures and Christian Creationists, then. They are WILDLY different 
in their attempts to explain things they had no hope of understanding. The 
Hindus got close, with their estimates of time. That's about it.

>
> Lacking but a sporadic frequency of accepted prophets to carry the message 
> of the Creator we choose to either accept or reject His essence based on 
> His inability to be measured by our instruments and physical reality.
>
> Yet His periodicity is in most records more frequent than the global 
> innundation we know also occurs from time to time.

**Huh? Which "Global inundation" would that be? Given that there is not a 
shred of evidence of such a thing, I would be most interested in knowing 
more. When did this "Global inundation" occur? In your answer, you may care 
to factor in the 50,000+ years of continuous occupation of Australia, by the 
Aboriginals. AFAIK, 50,000 years pre-dates any written language. SO, where 
is this evidence you speak of, given that there has been no "Global 
inundation" for AT LEAST 50,000 years. Additionally, there is no 
archaeological evidence to suggest such an occurrence, either.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au