Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 125
Like Tree60Likes

Thread: The flood

  1. #1 The flood 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    The flood

    I have a theory based on something that actually could be a factual reason behind what caused the great flood.

    The Bosporus point breach which was said to be the small stretch of land that was keeping both the black sea and the sea of Marmara seperate.
    A break/breach occured which caused the waters from both to flood in to each other and the Aegean sea.

    I'm wondering if this story as it was passed on has been misquoted at some point and actually could be the logical explanation for the phrase 'The animals went in two by two'? It was actually the two bodies of water that merged.
    We know stories can be misinterpreted etc....

    It just made sense to me.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    It just goes to show the tortuous "logic" that can be used to try and validate bronze age fairy stories...

    ETA: I'm aware of the point exchemist made, my reference to tortuous logic was using this actual hypothesis to be a "logical explanation" for the two by two nonsense.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The flood

    I have a theory based on something that actually could be a factual reason behind what caused the great flood.

    The Bosporus point breach which was said to be the small stretch of land that was keeping both the black sea and the sea of Marmara seperate.
    A break/breach occured which caused the waters from both to flood in to each other and the Aegean sea.

    I'm wondering if this story as it was passed on has been misquoted at some point and actually could be the logical explanation for the phrase 'The animals went in two by two'? It was actually the two bodies of water that merged.
    We know stories can be misinterpreted etc....

    It just made sense to me.
    According to my understanding this is indeed one of the favoured theories for the origin of flood myths in that part of the world. It certainly seems more compelling than the alternative I have read of, that it was due to seasonal floods in the basin of the Tigris and Euphrates, where the Semitic legends are said to have originated.

    Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    hannah40 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The flood

    I have a theory based on something that actually could be a factual reason behind what caused the great flood.

    The Bosporus point breach which was said to be the small stretch of land that was keeping both the black sea and the sea of Marmara seperate.
    A break/breach occured which caused the waters from both to flood in to each other and the Aegean sea.
    One problem is that the flood story doesn't originate from that area. However, it does have its origins in Mesopotamia which, as the name implies, was subject to frequent destructive flooding.

    It just made sense to me.
    Rarely a good reason to believe something.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    It certainly seems more compelling than the alternative I have read of, that it was due to seasonal floods in the basin of the Tigris and Euphrates, where the Semitic legends are said to have originated.
    Pah!

    If it weren't for those floods we probably wouldn't have 60 minutes in an hour and 360 degrees in a circle.

    (And what do you mean, "said to have")
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    It just goes to show the tortuous "logic" that can be used to try and validate bronze age fairy stories...
    I don't think it is all fairytales, I believe some catostrophic event happened but I will be honest and say, huge ocean liner boats and 900 year old men kind of make it a bit more ridiculous but then that's Chinese whispers and misquotations and spin for you. I do believe there are reasonable scientific explanations for some of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    Sorry, I wasn't clear, read my edit above, the "'The animals went in two by two' is definitely a fairy story.
    I do believe there are reasonable scientific explanations for some of it.
    Go on present some, it's always good fun when someone tries to give a "scientific" explanation for their beliefs. We'll try not to laugh (although I can't promise I won't).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    ... but then that's Chinese whispers and misquotations and spin for you.
    Care to elaborate what sort of Chinese whispers, misquotations and spin took place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I'm wondering if this story as it was passed on has been misquoted at some point and actually could be the logical explanation for the phrase 'The animals went in two by two'? It was actually the two bodies of water that merged.
    We know stories can be misinterpreted etc....
    And what were the other 5 seas involved?
    Genesis 7:2 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens..."
    It just made sense to me.
    So much for that...
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Why does this particular fairy tale need to be proven and not Sleeping Beauty? The whole planet was flooded, but why havent Chinese and Algonquin and other cultures been told they no longer existed? they missed the memo from the god (of that specific culture) that says everyone on the planet had drowned except Noa? How did the Sloth from South America swim across the Atlantic to reach Africa and then cross the desert to reach the promised land to board the ship? Maybe Sleeping beauty was IN FACT in a coma, and was secretly fed by the court Jester who had escaped the magic of the witch because he was out of the castle, while the witch threw a concoction which exploded into hallucinogenic fumes which caused the knight to think she had transformed into a fire breathing Dragon. Or maybe the Dragon was real afterall and we can use science to try to explain how he breaths fire, as the methane build up in its digestive system is expelled in a dragon belch as the beasts rough flint-like teeth's friction creates a spark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The flood

    I have a theory based on something that actually could be a factual reason behind what caused the great flood. ....
    ..... It just made sense to me.
    I have an even better "theory."

    Every place that has a flood story seems to have marine fossils located on higher points of the local terrain.
    I suspect the flood stories were a primitive attempt to explain such phenomena.

    Since you can't prove me wrong I must be right!!!!
    Strange, adelady, MrMojo1 and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    To all the doubters, you can doubt if you like.

    It was a theory I came up with, I am putting it out there because maybe it could carry some weight. If we went with a closed mind all the time we wouldn't be able to advance on any possibility of further/alternative answers.

    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*

    I still don't know why I was booted the last time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    To all the doubters, you can doubt if you like.
    Thanks, we will.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It was a theory I came up with, I am putting it out there because maybe it could carry some weight. If we went with a closed mind all the time we wouldn't be able to advance on any possibility of further/alternative answers.
    It is not a theory, it is a best an unsuported guess. Theories are supported by evidence (Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Again you have the crank mentality that people who laugh at you are closed minded. We're not, scientists are very open minded if you present a logical argument. If you present nonsense we laugh, simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.
    Yes, this is a science forum, if you post unscientific nonsense you WILL be told or asked to either put up (i.e support your claim with evidence "It makes sense to me doesn't cut it) or shut up, as is only right and correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*
    Me neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I still don't know why I was booted the last time.
    My guess is it was the posting woo or links to pseudoscience with no attempt at discussion as well as the possibility of hidden agendas that you consistently show you have. But it's just a guess :shrug:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    To all the doubters, you can doubt if you like.

    It was a theory I came up with, I am putting it out there because maybe it could carry some weight. If we went with a closed mind all the time we wouldn't be able to advance on any possibility of further/alternative answers.

    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*

    I still don't know why I was booted the last time.
    Hannah I'm pretty certain last time it was due to posting - or appearing to - with an unstated hidden agenda that riled people. So long as you are upfront about your motives when you post you should be OK on that score at least.

    P.S. I'm fairly certain this idea isn't original, though it seems from the other responses that it may have proved to be a bit of a 9 day wonder. Possibly worth reading more about it on the web to find out to what degree it still enjoys support, or whether it has now been discredited. Then, if it seems to be still going strong, you will have some references to cite in support, against those who are sceptical. Reading what other scientists have already done is a key part of science, after all - no point in doing a research project that has already been done!
    Last edited by exchemist; April 15th, 2014 at 11:13 AM. Reason: PS added
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Yes, flood myths abound. No, you don't have a theory, but an idea. Yes, something like that might have happened at some point and maybe it did add to the flood myth.
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    ... but then that's Chinese whispers and misquotations and spin for you.
    Care to elaborate what sort of Chinese whispers, misquotations and spin took place?
    Seems pretty obvious Hannah is referring to the process by which some actual event may have eventually become transmogrified into the biblical Flood Myth.
    hannah40 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    To all the doubters, you can doubt if you like.

    It was a theory I came up with, I am putting it out there because maybe it could carry some weight. If we went with a closed mind all the time we wouldn't be able to advance on any possibility of further/alternative answers.

    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*

    I still don't know why I was booted the last time.
    Hannah I'm pretty certain last time it was due to posting - or appearing to - with an unstated hidden agenda that riled people. So long as you are upfront about your motives when you post you should be OK on that score at least.

    P.S. I'm fairly certain this idea isn't original, though it seems from the other responses that it may have proved to be a bit of a 9 day wonder. Possibly worth reading more about it on the web to find out to what degree it still enjoys support, or whether it has now been discredited. Then, if it seems to be still going strong, you will have some references to cite in support, against those who are sceptical. Reading what other scientists have already done is a key part of science, after all - no point in doing a research project that has already been done!

    I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me. My theory does have part fact being that the flood itself was the basis for my idea.

    If people get riled on here about topics then they have issues. I don't know anyone personally on here, so would not set out to deliberately annoy.
    I would speak to them personally. If I thought I would get a result.

    I have fathomed that shouting people down is one of the reasons some sciences can't and wont advance.

    It is ok though.

    I will keep talking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    ...and we'll keep laughing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    This could be an explanation for some flood myths (whereas this in Japan, say, are more likely to be due to tsunamis) but not The Flood Myth.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Why does this particular fairy tale need to be proven and not Sleeping Beauty? The whole planet was flooded, but why havent Chinese and Algonquin and other cultures been told they no longer existed? they missed the memo from the god (of that specific culture) that says everyone on the planet had drowned except Noa? How did the Sloth from South America swim across the Atlantic to reach Africa and then cross the desert to reach the promised land to board the ship? Maybe Sleeping beauty was IN FACT in a coma, and was secretly fed by the court Jester who had escaped the magic of the witch because he was out of the castle, while the witch threw a concoction which exploded into hallucinogenic fumes which caused the knight to think she had transformed into a fire breathing Dragon. Or maybe the Dragon was real afterall and we can use science to try to explain how he breaths fire, as the methane build up in its digestive system is expelled in a dragon belch as the beasts rough flint-like teeth's friction creates a spark.
    They thought the whole planet flooded because they were more than likely not aware of how big the earth was and thought that the area they lived in was the entirety of land itself!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Seems pretty obvious Hannah is referring to the process by which some actual event may have eventually become transmogrified into the biblical Flood Myth.
    To my knowledge, the Chinese flood mythology is pretty localized to the great rivers of China, and the abrahamic flood myth being somewhat more identical to (if not borrowed from) the Sumerian ones from an earlier age. I'm still confused as to how and why the "Chinese" were brought into the picture with "whispers and misquotations and spin".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    Ah, maybe you aren't familar with the idiom: Chinese whispers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ninja'd both of yer, heheheh
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Seems pretty obvious Hannah is referring to the process by which some actual event may have eventually become transmogrified into the biblical Flood Myth.
    To my knowledge, the Chinese flood mythology is pretty localized to the great rivers of China, and the abrahamic flood myth being somewhat more identical to (if not borrowed from) the Sumerian ones from an earlier age. I'm still confused as to how and why the "Chinese" were brought into the picture with "whispers and misquotations and spin".
    "Ah I see the problem. You are in Singapore.

    "Chinese whispers" is an English figure of speech : Chinese whispers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Nothing to do with floods in China.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I'm still confused as to how and why the "Chinese" were brought into the picture with "whispers and misquotations and spin".
    Ah! Good job I read the "second language" thread; I wouldn't have known that English wasn't your first language:
    Chinese whispers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (Ironic that your first languages are Chinese. :-))
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.
    This is standard crank fare.
    Leaving aside the fact that you have already been informed that you do NOT have a theory - and also been given a link that shows why it's not a theory - you're wrong about "It is basically telling people to shut up".
    What is ACTUALLY being said is: provide evidence. Support your claim. Address the flaws.
    If you don't or can't do that then your "idea" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*
    Fingers crossed.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me.
    Again, standard crank fare: "if you can't prove me wrong then I must be right".
    That's not how science works. (Nor, in fact, rationality).

    My theory does have part fact being that the flood itself was the basis for my idea.
    Er, yeah... some basic failure of ratiocination here, methinks.

    If people get riled on here about topics then they have issues.
    Like the way you get riled every time someone points out that your "ideas" (at least as presented) have little merit?

    I would speak to them personally. If I thought I would get a result.
    If you don't provide anything other than unsupported speculation then I suspect that "result" would laughing in your face.

    I have fathomed that shouting people down is one of the reasons some sciences can't and wont advance.
    And another failure...
    You appear to have no idea what science is or how it does advance.

    I will keep talking.
    Please don't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    To all the doubters, you can doubt if you like.

    It was a theory I came up with, I am putting it out there because maybe it could carry some weight. If we went with a closed mind all the time we wouldn't be able to advance on any possibility of further/alternative answers.

    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*

    I still don't know why I was booted the last time.
    Hannah I'm pretty certain last time it was due to posting - or appearing to - with an unstated hidden agenda that riled people. So long as you are upfront about your motives when you post you should be OK on that score at least.

    P.S. I'm fairly certain this idea isn't original, though it seems from the other responses that it may have proved to be a bit of a 9 day wonder. Possibly worth reading more about it on the web to find out to what degree it still enjoys support, or whether it has now been discredited. Then, if it seems to be still going strong, you will have some references to cite in support, against those who are sceptical. Reading what other scientists have already done is a key part of science, after all - no point in doing a research project that has already been done!

    I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me. My theory does have part fact being that the flood itself was the basis for my idea.

    If people get riled on here about topics then they have issues. I don't know anyone personally on here, so would not set out to deliberately annoy.
    I would speak to them personally. If I thought I would get a result.

    I have fathomed that shouting people down is one of the reasons some sciences can't and wont advance.

    It is ok though.

    I will keep talking.
    Did you read the link I posted about this?

    If you do, you will see there has been a fair bit of work on it. It rather looks, if that link is representative, as if the date and degree of flooding may not have been as suitable to support the idea as had been originally suggested.

    Re "getting riled" etc, you seem to miss the point. It is not enough to brush this off as people "having issues".

    It is bad form in a science discussion to make posts with an undiclosed agenda. Science works on the basis of people being objective and open about what they know and what ideas they have. Any kind of covert approach undermines the basic level of trust that people need to have in order to use each others findings and thought processes to advance our collective knowledge.

    Anyone who does that deserves a rough ride from the community and may get expelled from the discussion.

    I am fairly sure that was the problem (or the perceived problem at least) in your case. You will see that this has bred a certain level of distrust of you among some of us here. I'm afraid you will have to live with that until your reputation recovers. Posts that are free of innuendo and hints of unstated attitudes will help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Trying to stop people thinking by citing their theories as nonsense does not help. It is basically telling people to shut up.
    This is standard crank fare.
    Leaving aside the fact that you have already been informed that you do NOT have a theory - and also been given a link that shows why it's not a theory - you're wrong about "It is basically telling people to shut up".
    What is ACTUALLY being said is: provide evidence. Support your claim. Address the flaws.
    If you don't or can't do that then your "idea" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    *I wouldn't be surprised if I get suspended again*
    Fingers crossed.

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me.
    Again, standard crank fare: "if you can't prove me wrong then I must be right".
    That's not how science works. (Nor, in fact, rationality).

    My theory does have part fact being that the flood itself was the basis for my idea.
    Er, yeah... some basic failure of ratiocination here, methinks.

    If people get riled on here about topics then they have issues.
    Like the way you get riled every time someone points out that your "ideas" (at least as presented) have little merit?

    I would speak to them personally. If I thought I would get a result.
    If you don't provide anything other than unsupported speculation then I suspect that "result" would laughing in your face.

    I have fathomed that shouting people down is one of the reasons some sciences can't and wont advance.
    And another failure...
    You appear to have no idea what science is or how it does advance.

    I will keep talking.
    Please don't.
    Well, steady on, I think this level of hostility is a bit unwarranted actually. This idea was in the press at the end of the 90s and has been researched quite a bit, according to what it says here: Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    even if the conclusion is that doesn't actually seem to work.

    While this poster may not appreciate the distinction between an idea and a real theory, the idea as such does not appear to be totally daft.

    And I find myself intrigued as to what caused this canyon they apparently found.
    Strange and hannah40 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Dywyddyr - You are giving ducks a bad name.

    I will only accept I am wrong when my idea/theory can be shown to be nonsense. Especially the part about the 'two by two' phrase being a misquote which actually may be attributed to the event.

    With respect ,I know some of you are scientists or have PHd's but lets be honest here, it doesn't qualify you to shout BS at anything you please. Does it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ah, maybe you aren't familar with the idiom: Chinese whispers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ninja'd both of yer, heheheh
    Are you refusing to believe the possibility of misquotations existing?

    Are you familiar with the term 'Parablepsis' too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Dywyddyr - You are giving ducks a bad name.
    And you're giving H. Sapiens a bad name.

    I will only accept I am wrong when my idea/theory can be shown to be nonsense.
    Crank.

    Especially the part about the 'two by two' phrase being a misquote which actually may be attributed to the event.
    Well you're obviously right: because people at that time were so f*cking dumb they didn't know that it takes a male and a female (oh look! TWO!) animal to breed.

    With respect ,I know some of you are scientists or have PHd's but lets be honest here, it doesn't qualify you to shout BS at anything you please. Does it?
    Actually, it eminently qualifies us to shout BS when something is BS.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    I used to wonder why ducks were used to stuff bedding.

    I need wonder no more!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Still can't address the flaws?
    Still can't support your claim?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Dr. Robert Ballard who's work went far to document the refilling of the Black Sea had similar idle speculation.

    The problem is there's little else other than the share size of this particular event to distinguish it from among other common catastrophic floods that happened as humans set up on flood planes for it's rich soils and productive agriculture. It seems this particular event probably happened too soon anyhow--long before the stories of Gilgamesh from which the Hebrew mythologies grew.

    Hana since this is a science forum, you should be more careful about the use of "theory"--for most here, and in any scientific discussion, theory is the highest form of certainty. What you have is an idea, or hypothesis at best.
    exchemist likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Oh, right. I have to be careful as to what word terminology I use. So, it's an idea/hypothesis (at best), mind you though, it has already been discounted by some on here.

    Still, I'm the one that gets picked on, I have had to endure insult after insult since I joined and and the one time I decided to lower myself to their standards I GET SUSPENDED. That's great moderating that is!
    EPIC!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    So, it's an idea/hypothesis (at best), mind you though, it has already been discounted by some on here.
    First, don't lash out at moderators. It never ends well. It always brings to mind Arachne and Athena, to me.

    Second, the problem you have is that you made a fairly outrageous comment with:

    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I'm wondering if this story as it was passed on has been misquoted at some point and actually could be the logical explanation for the phrase 'The animals went in two by two'? It was actually the two bodies of water that merged.
    And you have yet to strongly support it. My advice, as if anyone wants it, is to support a statement like that immediately and with good evidence or don't make it in the first place. If you cannot come up with a logical way to back up what you say, maybe it's best if you just hold onto the thought for a while and mull it over.

    Personally, it seems like a strong bias to select that phrase and suggest it was simply misinterpretation. Why that ONE part? It sounds to me as if reinterpreting that phrase is just a convenient way to skirt around the fact that this "fairy tale" is very weak in terms of being even remotely plausible in regards to animals on a boat.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    I don't have the tools to research my ideas. I'm hoping that the right people might pick up on it and try to assess it but I ask, is it wise or logical to do it in 5 minutes.....is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The main problem with the story being started by an ordinary flood is that, such floods were too common. The story would have only circulated until another group experienced a flood of their own, realized that floods are not super-abnormal or supernatural events, and then stopped retelling it.

    In order for the story to morph from a common river flood into a world wide catastrophe, it would need to be in circulation for quite a while. It needs staying power in order to become a legend.

    If it starts big, then like "Paul Bunyun", it can grow and grow until it's engulfing the whole world. But, in order to get the ball rolling we would need to start with an abnormal flood. One that doesn't get repeated in history for a few hundred years at least, so it can "grape vine" away from the original teller until nobody alive can remember what actual event it was based on or how the original story even went.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I don't have the tools to research my ideas. I'm hoping that the right people might pick up on it and try to assess it but I ask, is it wise or logical to do it in 5 minutes.....is it?
    I don't know what you mean when you say you don't have the tools to do the research. If you mean that you cannot travel back in time and witness the event, you're not alone. If you mean that you cannot find historical, biological, geological, etc. evidence which supports your claim ... then maybe you should reconsider your claim.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I don't have the tools to research my ideas.
    You don't even have the tools to come up with viable ideas.

    I'm hoping that the right people might pick up on it and try to assess it but I ask, is it wise or logical to do it in 5 minutes.....is it?
    Why should anyone pick up on it?
    You have given zero reasons to consider your idea seriously.
    There are numerous objections, some stated, none addressed and no reason at all to give it consideration.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Still can't address the flaws?Still can't support your claim?
    She did Not make a claim. She offered an idea for discussion that she colloquially called a theory. Then employing your trademark knee jerk dogma you pooh-poohed it revealing your own ignorance of myth formation. At times you become tiresome.
    KALSTER, Strange and hannah40 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Rethinking the mundane flood gets emebellished theory:

    I could see this happening if one guy were to become the sole survivor of a tribe that got killed by a flood. In the tribal world, tribes are usually quite reluctant to adopt a person who they find wandering the wilderness on his own, because they figure that it's likely that the reason he doesn't have a tribe is that he did something to make his previous tribe want to kick him out.

    So if there were a flood, and it killed all of a tribe except one guy and his wife and kids, that guy would probably have to just go out in the wilderness and start over. Start his own tribe from just his own family. After a few generations, the tribe grows until it's a respectable size, and of course the origin story for that tribe is that a lone survivor started it.

    That's got the workings of something that could last long enough to get embellished. His new tribe would settle somewhere far away from water, so they wouldn't experience any new floods for several hundred years. Their naivety about floods would make the story sound impressive enough to retell among their own tribe.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    She did Not make a claim. She offered an idea for discussion that she colloquially called a theory.
    Not that El Pato needs defending, but the statement made, that the "two by two" portion of the tale was simply a misinterpretation, was so poorly supported that, regardless of whether it was a claim or idea or whatnot, it was hard to find much to discuss about it. Attributing it to Chinese whispers doesn't substantiate the notion or make it worth discussion.

    Personally, I took it a little badly because it sounded like an attempt to conveniently rewrite the story to lend it more credence. Maybe I jumped to conclusions, too. If so, I apologize.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I don't have the tools to research my ideas. I'm hoping that the right people might pick up on it and try to assess it but I ask, is it wise or logical to do it in 5 minutes.....is it?
    Nor do most of us, if you mean original research of our own. But we do have the internet, and we can find out a huge amount to make sure we don't look like dicks, just by the precaution of googling a couple of things before we make a post. Not that this is a silly thread in my view, I'm making a general point about "research".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    She did Not make a claim.
    Correct.
    My mistake.
    Then again, given that she went on to state "I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me" and "I will only accept I am wrong when my idea/theory can be shown to be nonsense". I.e. a claim that she's right until "proven" wrong.

    Then employing your trademark knee jerk dogma you pooh-poohed it revealing your own ignorance of myth formation.
    Yeah?
    Hardly.
    My "ignorance of myth formation" doesn't come into it when:
    A) the event in question didn't happen in the locale of the myth in question.
    B) there are other explanations of "two by two". (Ignoring the fact that the Bible states "7").
    C) there's zero evidence (presented - if there's any at all) to support her idea (and, so far, all she's done is whine about being "picked on" as opposed to addressing that lack).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not that El Pato...
    pato is a spanish way of saying gay.
    Hmm, not the first time I've been accused of that.

    Personally, I took it a little badly because it sounded like an attempt to conveniently rewrite the story to lend it more credence.
    I suspect there's an element of that involved: huge ocean liner boats and 900 year old men kind of make it a bit more ridiculous.
    A BIT more ridiculous?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I don't have the tools to research my ideas.
    You don't even have the tools to come up with viable ideas.

    I'm hoping that the right people might pick up on it and try to assess it but I ask, is it wise or logical to do it in 5 minutes.....is it?
    Why should anyone pick up on it?
    You have given zero reasons to consider your idea seriously.
    There are numerous objections, some stated, none addressed and no reason at all to give it consideration.

    I'm not saying my ideas are to be taken as fact but like I said, it made sense to me to perhaps be worth a second look. Hey, even truths start out as ideas. We have to remember that the bible does contain some elements of historical and scientific events, it is not all nonsense. Even as a person myself who isn't religious would still lend it some credibility, decency and respect it might well deserve. That said, I do make jokes about certain situations.

    With the basic tools and observations and of course the unfortunate truth of the illiteracy rate of the populace back then they didn't always have the means to write findings or translate well. Hence the reason the Egyptians and past people used pictures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Oh, right. I have to be careful as to what word terminology I use. So, it's an idea/hypothesis (at best), mind you though, it has already been discounted by some on here.

    Still, I'm the one that gets picked on, I have had to endure insult after insult since I joined and and the one time I decided to lower myself to their standards I GET SUSPENDED. That's great moderating that is!
    EPIC!
    Hannah calm down, this is a science forum, remember, and there are standards to scientific discourse that you need to learn, that's all. This is all Lynx is pointing out, quite politely, to you. One of the things that comes as a shock to some lay people is getting used a to a higher precision in terminology. To some people it seems pedantic, but that's the way we have been taught to think, for good reasons.

    Now you are getting a rougher ride than I think is justified from some people, who have made their mind up about you rather quickly from some of your earlier posts. But that's not true of the moderators.
    KALSTER, John Galt and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    We have to remember that the bible does contain some elements of historical and scientific events, it is not all nonsense
    Historical, perhaps. Scientific, not at all.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    She did Not make a claim.
    Correct.
    My mistake.
    Then again, given that she went on to state "I've looked and I can't find anything, unless it magically appears to disprove me" and "I will only accept I am wrong when my idea/theory can be shown to be nonsense". I.e. a claim that she's right until "proven" wrong.

    Then employing your trademark knee jerk dogma you pooh-poohed it revealing your own ignorance of myth formation.
    Yeah?
    Hardly.
    My "ignorance of myth formation" doesn't come into it when:
    A) the event in question didn't happen in the locale of the myth in question.
    B) there are other explanations of "two by two". (Ignoring the fact that the Bible states "7").
    C) there's zero evidence (presented - if there's any at all) to support her idea (and, so far, all she's done is whine about being "picked on" as opposed to addressing that lack).

    When I said I couldn't find anything, I meant the part about the two by two quotation being misquoted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not that El Pato...
    pato is a spanish way of saying gay.
    Hmm, not the first time I've been accused of that.
    Well, there you go. That's what happens when you know some vocabulary in another language and you're completely ignorant of their idioms. You end up calling someone gay.

    At least this wasn't at a Mexican bar...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not that El Pato...
    pato is a spanish way of saying gay.
    Hmm, not the first time I've been accused of that.
    Well, there you go. That's what happens when you know some vocabulary in another language and you're completely ignorant of their idioms. You end up calling someone gay.

    At least this wasn't at a Mexican bar...
    I've already told you the story about my Mitsubishi "Pajero" , I think…………..
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I've already told you the story about my Mitsubishi "Pajero" , I think…………..
    I'm assuming it's similar to the Mazda Laputa gaff.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I've already told you the story about my Mitsubishi "Pajero" , I think…………..
    I'm assuming it's similar to the Mazda Laputa gaff.
    "Pajero" is slang for "wanker" in Spanish.

    Laputa is "the prostitute" or something? (wild guess)
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I've already told you the story about my Mitsubishi "Pajero" , I think…………..
    Those were kind of like little jeep things but not really intended as offroad utility vehicles, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Or the Chevy Nova. No va means no go. The car didn't sell well in Mexico.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I have a theory based on something that actually could be a factual reason behind what caused the great flood.

    The Bosporus point breach which was said to be the small stretch of land that was keeping both the black sea and the sea of Marmara seperate.
    A break/breach occured which caused the waters from both to flood in to each other and the Aegean sea.
    Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Dang, homie. You got ninja'd by almost 7 hours!

    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    That's not ninja, that's SUMO...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Um, The Bible is not a science textbook.
    It is not a textbook of any sort at all.
    It is more like a poorly edited collection of whatever mythological stories and other documents the old folks were able to collect and stick together.
    The bible has collections of tribal laws, part of a state constitution,. a civil and criminal code section, a few books of history (mostly incorrect) and a section of quotes about general wisdom called proverbs.

    The Bible consistently displays more of a general lack of knowlege in the ancient world than it demonstrates anything else.

    There are good arguments that The Bible actually begins with the High Priest Hilkiah in about 630BC, during the short reign of Josiah, the first King of Judah.
    Some other argue it only really becomes The Bible after the AD 325 Council of Nicaea under Emperor Constantin.
    Last edited by dan hunter; April 15th, 2014 at 08:47 PM. Reason: spelling
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not that El Pato needs defending, but the statement made, that the "two by two" portion of the tale was simply a misinterpretation, was so poorly supported that, regardless of whether it was a claim or idea or whatnot, it was hard to find much to discuss about it. Attributing it to Chinese whispers doesn't substantiate the notion or make it worth discussion.

    Personally, I took it a little badly because it sounded like an attempt to conveniently rewrite the story to lend it more credence. Maybe I jumped to conclusions, too. If so, I apologize.
    I do understand your point of view. However, this is a discussion forum, where we are trying (or should be trying) to encourage an interest in science and a proper approach to science.

    To do this effectively I believe we need to distinguish between the true cranks and agents of woo, and those who are just not well educated in the sciences. I have no problem with the vigorous attacks made by the Duck and others on the cranks, but this is a wholly inappropriate approach for those who are simply naive about scientific methodology.

    I think it would have been better if Hannah had said "Do you think it possible that the animals going in two by two could be a metaphorical reference to the joining of the Black and Mediterranean seas?" That would have been a reasonable topic to discuss and, incidentally, fairly rapidly dismiss. It did not merit a full frontal assault with an armoured division, preceded by an artillery barrage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I agree that it is important we not seem like a place hostile to those who lack scientific understanding. There has been an air of aggression here recently that could probably be toned down. I don't defend things like name-calling and berating, even in the cases of cranks really.

    It makes it hard to get clarification on a statement when a poster feels they are being attacked (they often are).
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Um, The Bible is not a science textbook.
    It is not a textbook of any sort at all.
    It is more like a poorly edited collection of whatever mythological stories and other documents the old folks were able to collect and stick together.
    The bible has collections of tribal laws, part of a state constitution,. a civil and criminal code section, a few books of history (mostly incorrect) and a section of quotes about general wisdom called proverbs.

    The Bible consistently displays more of a general lack of knowlege in the ancient world than it demonstrates anything else.

    There are good arguments that The Bible actually begins with the High Priest Hilkiah in about 630BC, during the short reign of Josiah, the first King of Judah.
    Some other argue it only really becomes The Bible after the AD 325 Council of Nicaea under Emperor Constantin.

    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.

    The forbidden fruit and being ridiculed is how some vegetarians get treated today. lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    A reference to atoms?
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    The story of Noah contains some information that cannot be physically correct on the face of it, by that I mean the story of him being 900 years old. We know that is not possible dont we?

    So, either there is a misinterpretation (possibly more than one in the whole story) or, there may be a meaning that hasn't been fathomed?

    This is my explanation...for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The story of Noah contains some information that cannot be physically correct on the face of it, by that I mean the story of him being 900 years old. We know that is not possible dont we?
    Also, the volume of water. And the lack of evidence for a universal flood. And the impossibility of keeping that many animals alive and healthy in a single vessel. And the impossibility of building a vessel that size from wood. And the lack of evidence for that sort of genetic bottleneck in any species.

    Apart from that though, it is fine.
    KALSTER, MrMojo1, RedPanda and 1 others like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    Can you expand on that. You think women were created by being cloned from a man?
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    A reference to atoms?
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
    A bit of stretch; you could read almost anything into a vague comment like that. But, anyway, atoms are visible, so it would be incorrect.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    Can you expand on that. You think women were created by being cloned from a man?
    That is the general belief but I belive the idea itself is certainly a reference to biological change or an attempt at trying to understand a part of human evolution. They did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    An observation i've made. It appears we're not playing the 'crank language game'. When a crank uses the word 'theory' what they actually mean is 'speculation' (indeed OP even seems to be aware that they are speculating), the scientist responds and criticizes the crank for his inability to use technical jargon, the crank perceives this to be a threat not only to his own character, but to any sort of speculation (hence the constant reference to the 'open mind insult') and the cries of 'limiting progress'.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.

    The forbidden fruit and being ridiculed is how some vegetarians get treated today. lol
    Recieved wisdom and magic are not things science works on. If I was looking for allegories and analogies I think the Egyptian and the East Asian creation myths would be more fertile sources.
    Of course there might be a useful set of analogies for biological sciences in The Great Ash Tree Yggdrasil, (the tree of life) which suffers as Odin says, "suffers agony more than men know", as a hart bites it from above, it decays on its sides, and Níðhöggr bites it from beneath."

    Does this indicate that Odin was the greatest and wisest of all Gods and the Norse Myths more advanced than modern science?
    Last edited by dan hunter; April 16th, 2014 at 10:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    A reference to atoms?
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
    Why would it be a reference to atoms?
    Is there some need 1 to "reconcile" a myth from >2,000 years ago with science?
    Are you suggesting that they knew about atoms back then but couldn't describe them correctly?

    1 Is there any need to do so?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    And that idea is contradicted in its entirety by another story in the same book of the bible saying that man and woman were created at the same time.

    The two contradictory creation accounts.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    And that idea is contradicted in its entirety by another story in the same book of the bible saying that man and woman were created at the same time.

    The two contradictory creation accounts.
    Do we know for fact that they were created at the same time? I've heard the arguments for opposites etc but do we know with 100% accuracy that male and female came about at the same time? Or, did one have to evolve at some stage?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    And that idea is contradicted in its entirety by another story in the same book of the bible saying that man and woman were created at the same time.

    The two contradictory creation accounts.
    Do we know for fact that they were created at the same time? I've heard the arguments for opposites etc but do we know with 100% accuracy that male and female came about at the same time? Or, did one have to evolve at some stage?
    Hannah, you are in effect asking about the origin of sexual reproduction, I think. There is a summary of the hypotheses for this here: Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As with most things to do with life that occurred long before the earliest fossil remains, it seems to be a bit speculative.

    But I have to say I think you are on the wrong tack in trying to tease out potential , if partial, scientific insights the Jews or the Israelites of the Old Testament might have had. It seems far more likely to me that they were searching for meaning in their existence and these biblical stories and images should be seen poetically (i.e. to give aesthetic and emotional grounding to their lives) rather than as attempts at science. The Noah story is all about sinfulness, divine retribution and (as usual with the Jews) the notion of being spared or chosen due to special virtue.

    Trying to relate the bible to science is what creationist try to do and it's an unmitigated disaster. Religions are primarily about Man's place and purpose in the world and guidance for living one's life. They are not trying to answer the questions that science is concerned with, that is how the physical world works.
    John Galt, adelady and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    That is the general belief but I belive the idea itself is certainly a reference to biological change or an attempt at trying to understand a part of human evolution. They did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    It is much more likely that it is a means of justifying the patriarchal character of Israelite society by attempting to demonstrate that women are subservient to and dependent upon men.
    adelady and Dywyddyr like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I think it would have been better if Hannah had said "Do you think it possible that the animals going in two by two could be a metaphorical reference to the joining of the Black and Mediterranean seas?" That would have been a reasonable topic to discuss and, incidentally, fairly rapidly dismiss. It did not merit a full frontal assault with an armoured division, preceded by an artillery barrage.
    Seems like semantics to me. but whatev...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The story of Noah contains some information that cannot be physically correct on the face of it, by that I mean the story of him being 900 years old. We know that is not possible dont we?
    How do we know that a year was then what we call a year today? That's how he could have lived 900 "years."
    devil's advocate aside, all that stuff in the book is crap with respect reality. It's probably a "virtue for dummies manual" it's easier to understand the Bible than it is Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. They are essentially the same things only the bible has an easily relate-able characters and easily digestible stories/examples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    A reference to atoms?
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
    But, anyway, atoms are visible, so it would be incorrect.
    not without an aided eye. To the naked eye they are invisible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    TThey did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There were scientists doing incredible work hundreds of years before Christ and the Bible existed. The ancient Greeks alone (Archimedes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus) performed many important scientific experiments and made astounding observations. To suggest that the world at the time of Christ was somehow too primitive for real science is absurd.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    You think women were created by being cloned from a man?
    silly idea from the Bible considering we all start out as a woman in the womb. if anything Adam was cloned from Eve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    A reference to atoms?
    By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
    No, it is obviously pointing out that the "word of God" is not something visible. There is no reason at all to think they meant the "word of God" consists of atoms. It's a metaphysical point about God's command being the primary thing.

    If you want a bit of metaphysical speculation about this, I'd have said rather that the "word of God" might be taken to be the order in the cosmos that gives rise to matter in the forms of atoms etc. That order is what Man expresses in the so-called "laws" and "principles" etc of nature that we commonly speak about in science. We say that matter and energy "obey" those "laws" and "principles" so, in that sense, we too seem to think of the order as an immaterial something that precedes matter itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    If you want a bit of metaphysical speculation about this, I'd have said rather that the "word of God" might be taken to be the order in the cosmos that gives rise to matter in the forms of atoms etc. That order is what Man expresses in the so-called "laws" and "principles" etc of nature that we commonly speak about in science. We say that matter and energy "obey" those "laws" and "principles" so, in that sense, we too seem to think of the order as an immaterial something that precedes matter itself.
    And such an interpretation would be supported by the opening line of John's Gospel:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    TThey did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There were scientists doing incredible work hundreds of years before Christ and the Bible existed. The ancient Greeks alone (Archimedes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus) performed many important scientific experiments and made astounding observations. To suggest that the world at the time of Christ was somehow too primitive for real science is absurd.
    You're right of course. But then the Old Testament was put together a great deal earlier than the time of Christ. The New Testament - notably - has nothing in it that can be taken to be any sort of attempt at a scientific pronouncement. When creationists find conflicts between the bible and science, it is invariably the Old Testament that causes the trouble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    TThey did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There were scientists doing incredible work hundreds of years before Christ and the Bible existed. The ancient Greeks alone (Archimedes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus) performed many important scientific experiments and made astounding observations. To suggest that the world at the time of Christ was somehow too primitive for real science is absurd.
    You're right of course. But then the Old Testament was put together a great deal earlier than the time of Christ. The New Testament - notably - has nothing in it that can be taken to be any sort of attempt at a scientific pronouncement. When creationists find conflicts between the bible and science, it is invariably the Old Testament that causes the trouble.
    Even then, we're talking 3rd century BC. Comparing the works of Archimedes to Biblical literature demonstrates that the Bible was NOT intended to be taken as scientific, to me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    TThey did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There were scientists doing incredible work hundreds of years before Christ and the Bible existed. The ancient Greeks alone (Archimedes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus) performed many important scientific experiments and made astounding observations. To suggest that the world at the time of Christ was somehow too primitive for real science is absurd.
    You're right of course. But then the Old Testament was put together a great deal earlier than the time of Christ. The New Testament - notably - has nothing in it that can be taken to be any sort of attempt at a scientific pronouncement. When creationists find conflicts between the bible and science, it is invariably the Old Testament that causes the trouble.
    Even then, we're talking 3rd century BC. Comparing the works of Archimedes to Biblical literature demonstrates that the Bible was NOT intended to be taken as scientific, to me.
    Agreed. I would further hazard the opinion that nomadic peoples generally are not well-placed to develop theories of science - too busy scratching a living in the desert. You need leisure to think and to observe for fun.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Agreed. I would further hazard the opinion that nomadic peoples generally are not well-placed to develop theories of science - too busy scratching a living in the desert. You need leisure to think and to observe for fun.
    I would agree that proper scientific experiments require conditions and knowledge not always available to people of certain dispositions. However, the farmers in the Sahel who are largely formally uneducated, learned that sorghum grew best if they allowed cross pollination though they likely have no understanding of genetics. They learned to bury their harvest under an water-impervious layer of clay to keep it dry though they likely have no knowledge of geology.

    Rudimentary science can still be performed even when the application of the scientific method is not understood. I took a bit of offense at the notion that the people of this time were so primitive that we should expect nonsense from them.
    John Galt likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The bible might not be scientific up to todays standards but I do believe there may be some worthwhile allegory. One instance could be the idea of Adams rib.
    And that idea is contradicted in its entirety by another story in the same book of the bible saying that man and woman were created at the same time.

    The two contradictory creation accounts.


    Do we know for fact that they were created at the same time? I've heard the arguments for opposites etc but do we know with 100% accuracy that male and female came about at the same time? Or, did one have to evolve at some stage?
    Hannah, you are in effect asking about the origin of sexual reproduction, I think. There is a summary of the hypotheses for this here: Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As with most things to do with life that occurred long before the earliest fossil remains, it seems to be a bit speculative.

    But I have to say I think you are on the wrong tack in trying to tease out potential , if partial, scientific insights the Jews or the Israelites of the Old Testament might have had. It seems far more likely to me that they were searching for meaning in their existence and these biblical stories and images should be seen poetically (i.e. to give aesthetic and emotional grounding to their lives) rather than as attempts at science. The Noah story is all about sinfulness, divine retribution and (as usual with the Jews) the notion of being spared or chosen due to special virtue.

    Trying to relate the bible to science is what creationist try to do and it's an unmitigated disaster. Religions are primarily about Man's place and purpose in the world and guidance for living one's life. They are not trying to answer the questions that science is concerned with, that is how the physical world works.
    Actually, my original post was based on geographical aspects too. It has branched off as sometimes things do. I will add the link you provided to bookmarks for reading.
    Thanks.
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written. I don't believe in simply holding a point of view because it is polite or pc to do so. I like to have a reasonable understanding of why. Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    Isn't it fair to evaluate things first?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    If you want a bit of metaphysical speculation about this, I'd have said rather that the "word of God" might be taken to be the order in the cosmos that gives rise to matter in the forms of atoms etc. That order is what Man expresses in the so-called "laws" and "principles" etc of nature that we commonly speak about in science. We say that matter and energy "obey" those "laws" and "principles" so, in that sense, we too seem to think of the order as an immaterial something that precedes matter itself.
    And such an interpretation would be supported by the opening line of John's Gospel:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    I wasn't going to go there, but yes. Interestingly that is the New Testament rather than the Old, St John's gospel being the last to be written and the most philosophical in tone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    Isn't it fair to evaluate things first?
    Does this assume we haven't already made our evaluations? It doesn't seem fair to suggest that those of us who reject the Bible and its contents did so on a whim. I went to church as a kid and every girl I have date (and the one I married) come from very religious families so I have been exposed to religion all my life. I can't speak for everyone else, of course.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    TThey did the best they could with little tools and understanding but there must have been genius' who (because of lack of ability to write) may have had ideas that unfortunately never seen the light of day.
    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There were scientists doing incredible work hundreds of years before Christ and the Bible existed. The ancient Greeks alone (Archimedes, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus) performed many important scientific experiments and made astounding observations. To suggest that the world at the time of Christ was somehow too primitive for real science is absurd.
    I agree. I don't know what made you think I wouldn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written. I don't believe in simply holding a point of view because it is polite or pc to do so. I like to have a reasonable understanding of why. Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    Isn't it fair to evaluate things first?
    For pity's sake. I was a Sunday School teacher. (For that matter, I sang in church choirs after I'd decided I was atheist.)

    Like many other people here I knew exactly what I was doing when I decided it was nonsense. Other people came to atheism from different directions, different religious backgrounds, different societies with different culturally accepted beliefs.

    You can't presume that we don't know what we're talking about just because we reject any or all religious or superstitious beliefs. And you also can't presume it of anyone else you come across who doesn't believe in any or all gods.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written.
    That was the most interesting thing about the short religious studies course I did (I would have gone further but it started getting more about religion and less about history/sociology).

    Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    There has been a lot of work on the bible from a non-religious point of view: literary analysis (e.g. to understand how many authors there were - more than One, surprisingly), historical (e.g. which bits are useful sources for historical events, corroborated by other sources or archaeology), myth (e.g. what sort of stories do different cultures tell), moral (what lessons can we learn from it).

    Also, some eminent theologians of the Bible have been non-Christian or even atheists.

    So your claim that the Bible is rejected for PC or similar reasons appear to be false.

    (Although I wasn't brought up in a particularly religious environment - quite the opposite - I read the Old Testament as a child [there are some good bits but The Lord of the Rings is probably better; I skipped all the endless "... who begat ... who begat ... who begat ..." lists)]. I was surprised when I said to a religious friend, "you know those two different accounts of Genesis ..." and they had no idea what I was talking about.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written.
    That was the most interesting thing about the short religious studies course I did (I would have gone further but it started getting more about religion and less about history/sociology).
    Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    There has been a lot of work on the bible from a non-religious point of view: literary analysis (e.g. to understand how many authors there were - more than One, surprisingly), historical (e.g. which bits are useful sources for historical events, corroborated by other sources or archaeology), myth (e.g. what sort of stories do different cultures tell), moral (what lessons can we learn from it).Also, some eminent theologians of the Bible have been non-Christian or even atheists. So your claim that the Bible is rejected for PC or similar reasons appear to be false.(Although I wasn't brought up in a particularly religious environment - quite the opposite - I read the Old Testament as a child [there are some good bits but The Lord of the Rings is probably better; I skipped all the endless "... who begat ... who begat ... who begat ..." lists)]. I was surprised when I said to a religious friend, "you know those two different accounts of Genesis ..." and they had no idea what I was talking about.)
    People have lost employment for views on homosexuality. I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written.
    That was the most interesting thing about the short religious studies course I did (I would have gone further but it started getting more about religion and less about history/sociology).
    Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    There has been a lot of work on the bible from a non-religious point of view: literary analysis (e.g. to understand how many authors there were - more than One, surprisingly), historical (e.g. which bits are useful sources for historical events, corroborated by other sources or archaeology), myth (e.g. what sort of stories do different cultures tell), moral (what lessons can we learn from it).Also, some eminent theologians of the Bible have been non-Christian or even atheists. So your claim that the Bible is rejected for PC or similar reasons appear to be false.(Although I wasn't brought up in a particularly religious environment - quite the opposite - I read the Old Testament as a child [there are some good bits but The Lord of the Rings is probably better; I skipped all the endless "... who begat ... who begat ... who begat ..." lists)]. I was surprised when I said to a religious friend, "you know those two different accounts of Genesis ..." and they had no idea what I was talking about.)
    People have lost employment for views on homosexuality. I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    Eh? What has this to do with what Strange was talking about, or the subject of this thread?

    In any case, a moral discussion - moreover one with a prejudged outcome - is not the sort of thing we do in science.

    A little discipline, maybe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    People have lost employment for views on homosexuality. I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    I fail to see the connection with atheists rejecting the bible (or not). You do have a frustrating habit of jumping from one idea to another rather than discussing any one point.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    People have lost employment for views on homosexuality. I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    Whut?
    WTF does that have to do with what Strange was talking about?
    exchemist likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    And you think that discussion has been avoided or ignored for the last few hundred years?

    People have been looking into these issues from various angles for centuries. And most of them have been more or less reasonable about it.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    My main aim, is to try and make sense of why people make the decisions and choices they do and why things are written.
    That was the most interesting thing about the short religious studies course I did (I would have gone further but it started getting more about religion and less about history/sociology).
    Some discount God and therefore assume that it is ok to discount or throw the bible to the garbage.
    There has been a lot of work on the bible from a non-religious point of view: literary analysis (e.g. to understand how many authors there were - more than One, surprisingly), historical (e.g. which bits are useful sources for historical events, corroborated by other sources or archaeology), myth (e.g. what sort of stories do different cultures tell), moral (what lessons can we learn from it).Also, some eminent theologians of the Bible have been non-Christian or even atheists. So your claim that the Bible is rejected for PC or similar reasons appear to be false.(Although I wasn't brought up in a particularly religious environment - quite the opposite - I read the Old Testament as a child [there are some good bits but The Lord of the Rings is probably better; I skipped all the endless "... who begat ... who begat ... who begat ..." lists)]. I was surprised when I said to a religious friend, "you know those two different accounts of Genesis ..." and they had no idea what I was talking about.)
    People have lost employment for views on homosexuality. I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    Eh? What has this to do with what Strange was talking about, or the subject of this thread? In any case, a moral discussion - moreover one with a prejudged outcome - is not the sort of thing we do in science. A little discipline, maybe
    It has a lot to do with the issue. I'm astonished at the lack of thinking outside of the box. When we have situations where arguments occur for biological make up then surely the best people to assess it would involve some kind of science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It has a lot to do with the issue.
    Right... but you can't spell it out.

    I'm astonished at the lack of thinking outside of the box.


    When we have situations where arguments occur for biological make up then surely the best people to assess it would involve some kind of science?
    Which has what to do with the Bible? Or atheism?
    Morals aren't decided on "biological make up" - take a look at history.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think it is only fair that we at least have some kind of reasoned debate (if not empirical evidence) to be able to say they are wrong. Don't you think?
    And you think that discussion has been avoided or ignored for the last few hundred years? People have been looking into these issues from various angles for centuries. And most of them have been more or less reasonable about it.


    show me a conclusive truth either way. That is what I have been asking for all along.If you are accused of commiting a crime you would expect to see proof, wouldnt you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. old flood stories
    By dejawolf in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 24th, 2009, 08:31 PM
  2. the biblical flood
    By numb3rs in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 26th, 2008, 06:25 PM
  3. Biblical Flood
    By Hiramabbi in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: March 31st, 2008, 01:35 PM
  4. Noah's flood was probably not a global flood...
    By william in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: February 4th, 2007, 02:55 AM
  5. Flood Can Not Have Happened
    By GatorFan1984 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 18th, 2006, 12:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •