EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Most likely the black sea flooded, got written into the Epic of Gilgamesh, which followed the trade routes, got written into the Enuma Elish, traveled further down the trade routes and ended up in the oral traditions of the Israelites who then wrote it into the Torah. Other flood myths are likely because places in the world flood, simple fact of living on this planet. That doesn't equate to a single global flood ever happening.
I have yet to see even a half baked argument to support a global flood based on actual scientific evidence.
What I was saying is that it might have APPEARED to be a worldwide flood to people because what they saw get flooded, was the only world they knew. Do you think they had any idea what was farther than their borders in ancient times?? Most of these stories pre-date continent spanning (or even region spanning) peoples.
SO let's say some backwater tribe in Asia gets flooded out. They percieve that the World, actually the known world to them, gets flooded. And then add to that translation issues, which apparently aren't possible because of the Universal Grammar theory that paris brought up...cause...ya know how ancient languages were about as different as Italian and Spanish...
and wtf...Clams? really? CLAMS?! Don't bring the clams into this because you KNOW what picture I'm going to post...
EDIT: Too late.
That's not a clam that's a Geoduck
That's not a Geoduck, it's a Panopea Abrupta, a species of very large saltwater clam
Science'd.
Wow.
We're smart.
I say tomatoes, he say tomatoes.
You know you're addicted to World of Warcraft when anytime someone uses the word "wow" you think they're about to make a reference to the game:lol:
You search the forum for "wow" don't you.
I know how to get the great Jerry to response to my posts now.
most WoWnuts can discern a "wow" from "WoW", yes?
Yes. But "unknown" does not necessitate "both".Substitute an electron for the cat.
Same principle.
Observing the decaying isotope will cause the probability wave to break. The state of the cat (electron) is an unknown until this juncture.
Substitute an electron for the cat.
Same principle.
Observing the decaying isotope will cause the probability wave to break. The state of the cat (electron) is an unknown until this juncture.
The issue I have is the idea that because you don't know if the cat is dead or alive, the cat -is- both dead and alive.We can only make statements about what we know.
Until a measurement or observation is made, we can not say anything about the cat.
The issue I have is the idea that because you don't know if the cat is dead or alive, the cat -is- both dead and alive.
I'm with you.
I understand the concept on probability the principal is establishing, I just think it misrepresents itself.
Until probability is 100% either way, we can't make an afermative claim either way.
If life -is- found on other planets, does this disprove the Bible's story of Creation?
Irrelevant.The story of creation is not proven.
Hardly. It is entirely possible for Creation to happen in such a way to make evolution seem plauisble.In fact, evolution counters it.
Irrelevant.
The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven. If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.
Hardly. It is entirely possible for Creation to happen in such a way to make evolution seem plauisble.
So...
If life -is- found on other planets, does this disprove the Bible's story of Creation?
Read what I wrote:Its not irrelevant. You are assuming that the story of creation is true and asking if the discovery of sentient life on other planets would prove it false.
This is only true if you interpret Genesis literally.We are talking Biblical creation in genesis, not some form of deistic creation. Is it possible for a god to create the universe, set it motion, and allow evolution to happen? Sure, there is a possibility, but when you compare genesis to scientific evidence, the genesis story does not hold up.
If all you wanted to do was avoid the question, you should not have bothered rersponding in the first place.Disprove? It hasn't been proven in the first place.
Read what I wrote:
-The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven.
-If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.
This is only true if you interpret Genesis literally.
The question denotes no such presumption.
If all you wanted to do was avoid the question, you should not have bothered rersponding in the first place.
If that's how you want to put it, yes -- would they hypothesis set forth in the bible be disproven by finding life on other planets?You are asking if a hypothetical story would be disproved with the discovery of sentient life on other planets.
I answered it in my very first reply. It is you that ignored it, so I will say it again. Discovery of sentient life has no bearing on the creation story and could be easily rationalized by saying that God never gave divinely inspiration to the authors of sentient life on other planets.
Nowhere in here is found your response that "Discovery of sentient life has no bearing on the creation story".The story of creation is not proven. Your assumption that the story of creation is true, is false.
In fact, evolution counters it. We are not products of two people who lived for over 900 years with one of them being born from a rib.
Will the religious still believe in the Bible and the story of creation? Of course, since sentient beings from other planets have no bearing on the Abrahamic religions and the story of creation.
Without life, I see no reason for God; I think the two are inter-twined.yes, because the whole idea of a God creating a people is ridiculous to begin with. And life on another planet will prove to all that we are not unique.
No, the Bible disproves the Bible. The Bible isn't consistent with scientific fact.
Fact: The world-drowing flood described for Noah....didn't happen.
Period.
That's it.
No flood.
The myth is....a myth, not true.
End of argument.
Some parts of the Bible have been historically verified, such as places and names. So, just be careful when you make claims like that. It's not ENTIRELY proven, but it does have truth within it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?