Let's step back a bit before continuing to go in circles. Chris O'Connor recently posted about how BookTalk "ripped apart arguments" during discussions. This is called skepticism or critical thinking. I suggest you research this and try to engage in it. As an example of critical thinking, let's see how it might apply to one of your statements.

Geologists know that the Earth’s mountains and highlands have all been formed by water pushing them up and moulding them into peaks. p43

After reading that statement, a critical thinker might proceed something like this:

• Wow that's an interesting statement. Although I saw it on a TV show, I wonder if it is really true? What evidence supports that statement?
• Hmmmm.... Mount Everest is the highest mountain, about 5.5 miles above sea level. How could it be possible for water to push rock upwards that far? Even tsunamis don't get anywhere near 1/10 that high, plus wouldn't all the other gigantic mountains in the area block those waves? This doesn't seem physically possible!
• That makes me wonder how the Himalayan mountains were formed. Are there any alternate explanations not using water? I found something about plate tectonics and subduction zones, I must take a serious look at that!
• I wonder how the Hawaiian islands were formed? They are mountains in the ocean, but it seems the water crashing against them is attempting to wear those mountains down, not build them up. Hmmm... What are volcanoes and do they have anything to do with mountains?
• That quote mentions geologists - I wonder if I can find any that believe anything other than water creates mountains? If I do, then that statement is proved false, that's exciting!
• And so on.... Can you do your own research to prove or disprove the statement about water forming all mountains and highlands?

If you want to start checking into critical thinking or skepticism, I'd suggest reading at least two chapters in a book by Carl Sagan called Demon Haunted World, a work BookTalk has discussed twice. One chapter is The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. He lists about nine tools to employ and examples of how to use them. It's only eight pages, but not easy reading. As an example of statements that are not testable or falsifiable, Carl included a chapter called The Dragon in My Garage. Do any of your claims resemble that dragon?

Please let us know if you decide to investigate critical thinking or skepticism and how it turns out for you. Good luck and enjoy!

Chris, yes that's what I expected. I see a solar system the same way, like an atom with a nucleus (the sun) and planets and other bodies orbiting around it like protons, neutrons, etc.. I noted that beyond the outer orbiting bodies (beyond Pluto) there is an outer limit of containment like a cell's membrane. I like the idea of a solar system being like an atom, but an atom with the containment of an outer membrane, like a cell. I'll have to trawl through my notes to find out which programme I got this information from? It's possible that I was listening to a scientist's speculation and misinterpreted it. It was over ten years ago when I watched that one.

Landroid, expert on everything known to humankind. The camera was pointing at the fossils in the rock. The fossils were of sea creatures. The rock was on top of a mountain. The scientist's where there. The camera was there. I watched it and I've commented on it. I'm giving my interpretation of the first 'days' of Genesis. The way I see it. The way Moses describes it. The scientists in the documentary reached the conclusion that the Earth was formed underwater. I agree with that conclusion. If you don't, then you don't; I don't care. Your supercilious, omnipotent, patronizing, insulting tone is becoming extremely irritating.

Oh well I tried to promote a little critical thinking and although I hoped for a better reaction, honestly that's about what I was expecting. Best of luck on the rewrite of your book, I'm done discussing it.

This thread is a great example of how creationist struggle in scientific relevance. They plug god in any way they can.

Here is a very basic lesson in Geology. Creationist should pay attention there is a quiz Its about 40 minutes run time. The lesson is from 1998.



This is AronRa (a rationalist) shredding U.S. vice presidential nominee Mike Pence (a creationist) on evolution. about 18 minutes.

Dear Landroid, I've had sixteen years of critical thinking. I thought that was obvious? I get it now. I can see where I've gone wrong with my book. And that's all thanks to you, Chris, Taylor, Geo, etc.. I need to be more communicative; much more detail, and find a proof-reader. Something happened to me on that midnight rainy mountain top? For someone to immediately start thinking about Genesis and genetics, having had absolutely no interest in either before, is strange to say the least? When I first looked up the human appendix tube in a medical book I saw Caravaggio's painting, 'The Incredulity Of Doubting Thomas'. I knew what the Tree Of Life was straight away, no hesitation. It's not a tree, that's elementarily obvious. It's a human organ. And I'll get there even if it kills me?

No Michael, critical thinking does not mean coming up with unusual ideas outside the mainstream. It means examining ideas or claims to determine if they are justified, especially your own. From what I can tell, you are not capable of doing so. For just one example you saw a TV show that claimed the earth was formed under water and that mountains are created by water pushing the earth up. You admit the TV show was a long time ago and perhaps you misunderstood the point. In addition there are virtually zero geologists who agree with that claim. Yet you will not examine that idea; you will not check out alternate explanations. You only want to reinforce your original concept with more detail and I'm sure it will appear in your revised addition instead of being ditched. Yes of course it will remain because: Genesis.

I knew what the Tree Of Life was straight away, no hesitation. It's not a tree, that's elementarily obvious. It's a human organ. And I'll get there even if it kills me?

Sorry, but your idea of the missing organ is a hallucination. I do understand it has been lodged in your brain for sixteen years and you will indeed chase that phantom 'til the day you die. That image makes me sad...

Thank you for the vids, Taylor. I thoroughly enjoyed the second one. Two very nice gentlemen. If they had dinner with me they would go home as best friends because they're both right. Creation is putting two reproductive cells together and evolution is seeing what happens to them. If you've got any children running around, you and a female human being created them, and they evolved.
The first vid was a bit confusing. Twenty-eight years ago? I've seen documentaries about mountains forming underwater. That's where I got the part about fossilized sea creatures in the mountains. Plus, it matches up with Genesis. Thanks again, very interesting. I like those guys.

Michael Barry wrote:The first vid was a bit confusing. Twenty-eight years ago?

The date of the Geology video is irrelevant. If you paid attention to the video, than it goes without saying about how sea shells, end up on mountain tops.

W,IGN is a modern interpretation of the days in Genesis and a modern interpretation of the genome of Jesus. Both are unprecedented. When I read the Genesis days it made no sense to me. When I read about Jesus it made no sense to me. Genetics makes sense of both of them, in my opinion.
Don't be sad, Landroid. Relax and reflect on the possibility of someone having a different opinion than yours? You're knowledgeable. You should write your explanation for the meaning of life? I would certainly read it.