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

[jomifl]

/it makes perfect sense of the gobbledegook of religion/
so does insanity ...at least we do know that it exists.

[naomi24]

Indeed we do.

[jim360]

What amazes me most about your position, Naomi, is the incredible certainty you attach to it. No doubt whatsoever apparently. For the sake of clarity, can I ask if this is:

-- no doubt that this is a possible explanation for what we see in ancient works, or;
-- no doubt that this is the only possible explanation?

[jomifl]

Yes Ma'am we do indeed, will Ma'am be solving any more intractable conundrums today? ( yes, it has really come to this) :-)

[naomi24]

Jim, the former. I've no doubt that it's possible.

Jom, stop being rude. There's no need for it.

[jomifl]

From certainty to absolute possibility...hmmmm

[naomi24]

Jom, I've not said I'm certain of the theory. I said I’ve no doubt that the paintings depict manned flight. Carry on.

[jim360]

It's hard to see how, if you have no doubt that the paintings depict manned flight, that you can have some doubt that therefore a manned flight of some description took place to inspire those paintings. Unless you are happy to accept that they might be depicting the product of someone's imagination of how a manned flight might look (ie, the symbolic interpretation, that you however ruled out earlier).

[jomifl]

Ah, back to absolute certainty then ...are you sure?

[jomifl]

OK I get it, it's a quantum thing ...

[naomi24]

Jim, Can’t see how ancient man could possibly imagine the detail he recorded – but let’s look at it another way. Tell me why it isn’t possible.

You can have a go at that too if you like, Jom.

[Khandro]

People fly in their dreams, presumably always have done, so depicting it would be understandable. I'm always gliding around over exotic landscapes; Freud said it had some sexual connotations, but I doubt it.

[jim360]

I'm not going to tell you why it isn't possible, because a) the burden of proof is on the side of those who claim that these are actual depictions of actual manned flights anyway, and b) I don't think I ever claimed it wasn't possible. Just highly unlikely (I wouldn't care to put a figure on how unlikely, though).

What is true is that there are numerous depictions scattered throughout history, sometimes in very vivid detail, of things that we know to have not existed after all. Man has always had a surprisingly good imagination. Thus, even if the paintings in question were meant, beyond all doubt, to represent manned flights, it has to be accepted that it doesn't follow that they are meant as representations of what actually happened. There's a sense at which you seem to be doing ancient civilisations simultaneously too much credit and too little: too little credit for their creativity, and too much for their apparently remarkable ability to construct technically detailed replicas of things they have seen, and all this in an age when they often struggled to represent the human body in correct proportions (or

[naomi24]

Khandro, not in rocket powered spaceships that you can have no conception of.

Jim, thought not.

[jim360]

or hitting the submit button too early... damn.

(or, rather, not always trying).

At any rate I'm happy to accept that the alien astronaut interpretation is not impossible. But, without physical evidence, and with only records in art and ancient literature that can also be interpreted as expressions of creativity and symbolism, then it remains unlikely. Equally with the hurdle to cross of being absolutely sure that we aren't seeing things that we are familiar with even if that is not what was intended, it remains a very difficult thing to prove that some level of bias on our side is not involved in interpreting all this correctly as accounts of alien visitors. We've all heard of aliens, we have seen fictional representations of alien spacecraft, etc etc, so it's an idea that most of us will have in our head whether we want to or not.

All of this, and more, makes the interpretation you're offering as highly unlikely, and the symbolism interpretations rather more likely. I doubt we'll ever be certain one way or another, and maybe fresh physical evidence will show up that lends more weight to the "alien visitors" hypothesis in the future. Until such time, I hope my position comes across as reasonable.

[Zacs-Master]

If they were rocket powered spaceships, there's no way they would have traveled the interstellar distances required. And as for 'I'm certain of the theory'.....haaaaaa.

[naomi24]

Jim, actually, no your position doesn’t come across as reasonable. Why does all of that and more make it highly unlikely? It might be difficult to prove, but that doesn’t make it any more unlikely.

//We've all heard of aliens, we have seen fictional representations of alien spacecraft, etc etc, so it's an idea that most of us will have in our head whether we want to or not.//

Certainly that applies to us – but it didn’t, allegedly, apply to ancient man so where did his ideas come from?

[naomi24]

Zacs, once you've managed to control your mirth perhaps you can tell me who said they're certain of the theory. I must have missed that.

[jomifl]

They didn't claim to have seen aliens Naomi, that is an assumption of your's which you take to be true without any justification or evidence.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi

//Your question is both presumptuous and patronising.//

It was a simple request for information about what you know or don't know. I am not a ~~ng mind reader!

Please tell me how I can ask questions of fellow human beings without being told I am patronising or presumptious?