Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion

[jd_1984]

I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.

Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/life-earth-started-300-million-6664589

[Zacs-Master]

TOP The Ostrich Principle.

[jomifl]

BBB ...*** Beats Brains

[jomifl]

*** = male bovine excrement

[Hypognosis]

Titter ye not

c/o H2 channel, programme on right now.

David Icke and EvD have both appeared in the last 10 minutes.

Google corrected my typo, where I searched for 'Inca stones' with Cabrera

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

[jim360]

It's unfortunate, perhaps, but I suppose if you are going to make grandiose claims and they are backed up only by not-properly-referenced secondary sources, it doesn't matter too much.

So far as I can see, the primary source doesn't say what Naomi -- and others -- have said it does. The ball is really in her court to prove otherwise. I dare say we will be waiting a long time.

[jomifl]

Jim, even if Naomi's sources were as she says they still would only possibly prove that some people could write.

[jim360]

True, although it would at least give the proponents of the theory the credit of being honest about their sources. The interpretation is another matter -- eg that guff about relativity when what's posted is a) probably not even in the source, but b) nothing to do with relativity in any form whatsoever anyway.

[Hypognosis]

By way of a post script, a television production of the Mahabarata was done in the 1970s and the BBC screened it among the Saturday morning miscellany of kids' serials, which used to be on, every summer.

Epic battles, fantasy landscapes, internecine plots, Bollywood style acting.
Last time I consulted the wiki, it said the series ran for hundreds of episodes but the BBC either only played a small extract (the adventures of just one character) or they abridged the whole story arc into just half a dozen episodes.

Or my memory is on the blink. I'll read about it in my own time.

-----

There's a provocative closing paragraph at the end of that Sceptic Dictionary article, I linked to, earlier.

"Creationists, mythohistorians, and extraterrestrialists are in a jihad against belief in evolution where apparently it is one's duty to make the preposterous seem plausible."

Mythohistorians is a word they have coined and is self explanatory. I would only add that it is a bit rich to be dismissive of some Christians, for taking the Bible literally and then start arguing that epic myths, such as the Mahabarat contain grains of literal truth.

I think naomi has skilfully avoided the latter half of that and merely requests more openness to ideas which are off the beaten track.

What we should expect to gain from such straying, I have no idea. Other than satisfy her curiosity, using valid science, during her lifetime.

[naomi24]

My mistake here was in failing to convey that I have not committed 1.8 million words (Jim’s figure) to memory.

Hypognosis, // I think naomi has skilfully avoided the latter half of that and merely requests more openness to ideas which are off the beaten track.

What we should expect to gain from such straying, I have no idea.//

I haven’t knowingly avoided anything – skilfully or otherwise. That’s not what I do. What you might expect to gain from investigation is possibly – just possibly the truth – but perhaps not. Who knows? Me, or any of you? No.

Night all.

[jim360]

No, the mistake is in pasting text that claims to be from the original source when it transpires not to be -- or, at least, a far more accurate reference will be needed in order to confirm whether it's genuine material or not. Until then, it's not worth continuing the discussion. At best the alien astronauts position was already based on a literal interpretation of myth, anyway. If it's not even the right myth, but some made-up version of it centuries later to back up a particular viewpoint, then it becomes an even shakier position still.

It may still be of course that the quotes you gave are based on a different translation, making it rather harder to find of course, despite my best efforts (and I did try!). But I've done all I'm prepared to do to find something I don't think carries any meaning in a text that is too long to expect me to read, in order to continue an argument that long since moved away from anything reasonable.

One cannot -- cannot -- expect to base their world views on stories and be taken seriously at the same time. Even if the texts you quote are genuine original material, it still amounts to a highly selective quotation from a huge tome, filled with imagery and imagination and embellishments and all of the ancient narrative tricks. It's a bizarre way to analyse the world; eschewing the physical for the fantastical. And I'm giving it no more of my time.

[naomi24]

Jim, I posted a bit I hooked from the internet – as we all do – concerning something I haven’t looked at for years. Upon further research it appears that the quote is an amalgamation from those works, but that doesn’t detract from the point that the weapons used were, apparently, highly destructive. As for suggesting a text too long to read, I assumed there would be a search function available. I’m surrounded by a baying mob, some of whom are insulting me continually, and in an effort to deal with the bombardment and the spitefulness I made a mistake. So shoot me!

You, like others, had already made your mind up before this discussion began, but nevertheless you stayed. Whose time is being wasted? Off you go.

[jomifl]

Naom,/ I’m surrounded by a baying mob, some of whom are insulting me continually,/
Having carefully read through the entire thread, I cannot find any instance of your having been insulted. Unless suggesting that you might be wrong can be construed as an insult towards you personally.

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi, I'm afraid your constant claims to be some kind of quasi professor of religious studies puts your head firmly above the parapet for people wanting to take a pot shot at you. If you fail to provide evidence, or make a mistake in claiming evidence to be true when it isn't then you are bound to be criticised. This is neither a baying mob nor spiteful as you claim. I provided a searchable link which you seem to have ignored. I hope you can see how your oft implied expertise becomes a little doubtful in such circumstances and where you choose to want opponents of your doubtful 'theories' to provide evidence rather than you backing up your claims with facts.

[Khandro]

I wonder if this thread, like The Mousetrap, will run forever.

[jomifl]

You'e just added another 3 minutes Khandro :-)

[jim360]

The quote is an amalgamation? How much of one? If you selected a random set of words and strung together a sentence from something so long you could probably make it look like saying anything.

I'd actually tried to take your position seriously, and went to the trouble of finding a copy of one of the texts you suggested and spent some time performing searches through it to try and find supporting evidence for your claims. I found none. Not really my fault if it doesn't even say what you say it says, is it? And not my fault if this makes me inclined to think that I was right not to take it seriously in the first place.

[naomi24]

Jom, //Having carefully read through the entire thread, I cannot find any instance of your having been insulted.//

Oh … right. So “BBB ...*** Beats Brains” isn’t insulting. I must remember that in future.

Zacs, //I'm afraid your constant claims to be some kind of quasi professor of religious studies …//

“quasi professor of religious studies”? No, I would never have claimed that.

Jim, haha! Your determination not to waste your time here was short lived.

I’m off to talk to some grown-ups. Bye.