🚀 go-pugleaf

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:45:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
>>news:Rx2Ad.1636812$SM5.132115@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>When a species determines its level of awareness, either morally, 
>>>>>scientifically, or otherwise it is always pertinent to examine the 
>>>>>process and see if it is inherently representative of the biases of its 
>>>>>authors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem for the Creationists is that the scientific method simply 
>>>>works whether one believes in it or not, while a belief in the Bible or 
>>>>in God as the Creator is a circular argument, with no basis whatsoever in 
>>>>fact.
>>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>It strikes me there is still a significant, though rather tattered, 
>>>re-translated, even maddeningly incomplete transcribed record of our 
>>>origins, one measured in the eye of the day, both ethical and societal.
>>>
>>>In essence the Bible, and its root scrolls, are early science 
>>>(observation) and history all pasted together.
>>
>>**No. There is no science of any recognisable kind in the Bible. There is 
>>some history, some poetry and some philosophy. There is a good deal of 
>>hysterical ranting too. There's no science.
> 
> 
> Right, not an iota of science.  In fact faith is the diametric opposite of
> science, do not question, believe.
> 
> The bible is legend and superstition.  Even if there were a character
> called "Jesus of Nazarth" not a shread of evidence exists for godly powers.
> 
> 
>>>That the record is incomplete in spots, contradictory in others, yet
>>>oddly coincident across diverse geographically isolated populations
>>>indeed hints at a root commonality that is compelling.
>>
>>**Really? Explain the commonality between, say, Australian Aboriginals,
>>Hindu scriptures and Christian Creationists, then. They are WILDLY
>>different in their attempts to explain things they had no hope of
>>understanding. The Hindus got close, with their estimates of time.
>>That's about it.
> 
> 
> Don't be hornswaggled into arguing this thread with a religionist.  Of
> course they can show some correlation but not a direct link. 
> Civilizations have come and gone, many gone so long that not a whisper
> remains of their existance.  Grandiose claims of that God created anything
> are insupportable.
> 
> 
> 
>>>Lacking but a sporadic frequency of accepted prophets to carry the
>>>message of the Creator we choose to either accept or reject His essence
>>>based on His inability to be measured by our instruments and physical
>>>reality.
>>>
>>>Yet His periodicity is in most records more frequent than the global
>>>innundation we know also occurs from time to time.
>>
>>**Huh? Which "Global inundation" would that be? Given that there is not
>>a shred of evidence of such a thing, I would be most interested in
>>knowing more. When did this "Global inundation" occur? In your answer,
>>you may care to factor in the 50,000+ years of continuous occupation of
>>Australia, by the Aboriginals. AFAIK, 50,000 years pre-dates any written
>>language. SO, where is this evidence you speak of, given that there has
>>been no "Global inundation" for AT LEAST 50,000 years. Additionally,
>>there is no archaeological evidence to suggest such an occurrence,
>>either.
> 
> 
> He's probably speaking of Noah's Flood.  In 1996 science pretty well
> proved that Noah's Flood occurred about 7,500 years ago when the
> Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus Straits to the lands below
> sea level.  Here's a few links:
> 
> http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2002/noahsark.html
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

This has been disproven.  As it happened, it was the other way around, 
with the Black Sea breaking through the Bosporous into the 
Mediterranean.  And it began as a very slow seepage which continued for 
hundreds of years, not as a flood.

Fossil evidence shows that smaller creatures that lived in the Black Sea 
and slowly moved to the Mediterranean shows this, as well as the 
evidence of Black Sea area soils and silt which were deposited in the 
Mediterranean.

Ballard was unable to find any evidence that the Black Sea was anything 
but a sea, and has finally given up his efforts to prove the Noah myth.

It's also true that the Mediterranean area was below the level of the 
Atlantic.  It too, was very slowly flooded when the Atlantic finally 
rose to a level where it flooded into the Mediterranean.

No giant "the dam's busted" flood evidence anywhere.

> Of course Stone Age man didn't travel much, no more than a day's journey
> by foot, so the legends grew and were used by parents and shamen in a
> verbal "history" later added to the Old Testament.  Just as Greek Myths
> and Norse Legends did.
> 
> The truly regrettable part is that modern man is still unable to
> distinguish between legend and reality.  God didn't flood the lands so
> stop groveling to men in dresses like stone age barbarians.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian