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

[jim360]

I had as it happens prepared an earlier attempt to address that criticism, Naomi. In the end I can't see the point, really, beyond noting that I'd argue you seem to be starting to ask questions at least two steps ahead of where I think the starting point is, ie that firstly it's important to rule out bias at our end (based on, say, pattern recognition), and ruling out the possibility of symbolism entirely at the ancient peoples' end, before the discussion of alien astronauts can even get off the ground.

[Zacs-Master]

And ruling out people who were just poor artists or had poor eyesight.

[naomi24]

Jim, //it's important to rule out bias at our end//

Science certainly does that^ ....

// ruling out the possibility of symbolism entirely at the ancient peoples' end//

... but it doesn't do that^.

[jim360]

The mainstream approach may fall by default to symbolism too quickly. What I meant is, how certain are those who advocate the AA approach that symbolism just won't do at all to explain what is seen?

[naomi24]

Jim, To people who had no concept of even basic technology, let alone manned space flight, what could it possibly have symbolised? No, 'symbolism' just won't do.

[jim360]

I'm inclined to leave it there, then, since that isn't a convincing enough argument to me, but I don't think I'll be able to write a convincing-enough rebuttal either. Either way, thanks for answering the question and hope you get a chance to read the links on the previous page.

[naomi24]

Jim, It isn't intended to be a convincing argument - simply something very fundamental that I wish the 'experts' would think seriously about - but they don't.

I will read the links. Thank you.

[jomifl]

Here is my question Naomi, how do you know that the 'experts' haven't thought about their conclusions? At least credit them with knowing a little more about their subject than you do. They at least have studied the subject whereas you it seems have not. It is not uncommon in cartoons to denote fast moving objects by depicting lines trailing behind them, nobody seriously believes that this pictoral 'shorthand' implies the existence of rocket propulsion or tractor beams (post star wars)

[jim360]

There's a lot that the experts "think seriously about" that is never likely to make it into the public domain. Essentially because it's more efficient to present the one idea that works, as opposed to the several hundred others that did not. This is perhaps a flaw in some scientific papers, that they basically lie about how things went, but then "we spent six months trying this idea before realising that it was stupid" would waste a lot of paper and time reading.

Whether this applies to archaeology I can't say -- but the apparent absence in the mainstream literature of discussions about whether it was actually aliens doesn't mean that the community hasn't given it, possibly even serious, consideration at one time, or possibly multiple times.

[jomifl]

http://www.badarchaeology.com/extraterrestrials/erich-von-dnikens-spaceman-gods/

[naomi24]

Jom, these aren’t cartoons and they don’t depict speed. They depict manned flight. There can be no doubt about that. As a matter of fact I do know that these artworks – and more - have been allocated a standard ‘niche’ by archaeologists who have been presented with the alternative suggestion. I’m getting a bit fed up with people assuming they know what I have and have not studied – that’s twice on this thread alone. I give credit where credit is due.

And you’re still using character assassination in an effort to establish your argument. Get past it and look.

Jim, //it's more efficient to present the one idea that works, as opposed to the several hundred others that did not.//

It might ‘work’ insofar as it suits the status quo, but it’s not efficient if it’s wrong. We dismiss strange ideas because we restrict our intellect to what we know. We think it couldn’t have happened – therefore it didn’t. With an attitude such as that prevalent in the world of science, I fear we’ll never know.

[jomifl]

Forgive me for assassinating your character Naomi, I had only intended to point out some flaws in your logic. Of course the illustrations depict manned flight, what else? Those pictures of a person sitting on the lower limb of a sickle moon are depictions of real events too then?

[Khandro]

jomifl; If I had to place a bet on either Naomi's theory being the message bringer of DNA and life to Planet Earth, and yours of its spontaneous eruption out of 'primeval soup', then my money would be undoubtedly on naomi.

[jomifl]

Khandro, well of course you would, it's a complex subject, so many different scientific disciplines...

[jim360]

It's a risk in any field that you try the things that look like they might be worth pursuing, and give less attention to the things that look far more dubious at first glance. If we've missed out on alien astronauts being real that would be sad indeed, no arguing with that -- hard to find a scientist who isn't concerned with trying to find the truth.

All the same, the idea has rather a lot more going against it than for, and in those circumstances there is a limit to how much time you can spend considering what is almost certain to be a dead end before it's become essentially wasted time.

[naomi24]

Jom, //Forgive me for assassinating your character Naomi,//

You haven’t – but you’re like a dog with a bone with EvD - and you say my logic is flawed?

//Of course the illustrations depict manned flight, what else? Those pictures of a person sitting on the lower limb of a sickle moon are depictions of real events too then?//

Oh my! How very smart! And there’s me thinking you understood what this discussion was about.

Jim, //the idea has rather a lot more going against it than for//

And what precisely goes against it? The pre-conceived notion that it couldn’t possibly have happened?

[jim360]

We've had discussions about this before. I'd refer to my previous posts on the subject, here and in other threads. You rejected the points I made then, but my position's still the same and I expect yours is as well, so I'm not sure it's worth repeating myself.

[jomifl]

/ but you’re like a dog with a bone with EvD - and you say my logic is flawed? /
non-sequitur perhaps?

/They depict manned flight. There can be no doubt about that./
Really? absolutely no doubt at all, surely there is room for a little doubt considering we know so little about these civilisations

We could be forgiven for thinking that there is a god in heaven if we believed that the thousands of religious paintings that have been churned out depicted an approximation of reality. Perhaps they are just symbolic?

[Khandro]

//Perhaps they are just symbolic?//

I think he's got it! - by Jove he's got it! :0)

[naomi24]

jom, //Really? absolutely no doubt at all, //

None.