🚀 go-pugleaf

Bama Brian wrote:
> 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.

Not only that, but the Noah myth was supposed to have been world wide so
that article is doubly midleading.
 
> 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.