Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 27, 2024, 3:31 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On "Scholarly Consensus"
#21
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 7:50 am)Zone Wrote: The plagues of Egypt, rivers turning to blood and the darkening of the sky and all that business may have been caused by a volcanic eruption. There is some evidence that something like this happened sometime during the era. This could have been interpreted as Gods wrath.

Do you read anything at all besides pseudoscientific mularkey?


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#22
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 7:58 am)apophenia Wrote: Do you read anything at all besides pseudoscientific mularkey?

The description of the plagues and events in the Bible fit with a natural event such as a volcanic eruption though they may have got the order of the events mixed up. Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed by a volcano as well these stories aren't necessarily pure myth.
Reply
#23
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
I have seen links drawn from various Biblically reported events to the eruption of the volcano on Santorini (which is credited with destroying the Minoan civilization).

We don't know when exactly that eruption happened - somewhere between the first and second millennium BC.

Recent research suggests is was a huge eruption (bigger than Krakatoa). You would expect it to appear in all sorts of myths from that point on.
Reply
#24
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 8:02 am)Zone Wrote:
(September 19, 2013 at 7:58 am)apophenia Wrote: Do you read anything at all besides pseudoscientific mularkey?

The description of the plagues and events in the Bible fit with a natural event such as a volcanic eruption though they may have got the order of the events mixed up. Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed by a volcano as well these stories aren't necessarily pure myth.

"You can't prove it didn't happen!"


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#25
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
Which volcanic eruption was it that turned staves into serpents again?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#26
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 8:16 am)apophenia Wrote: "You can't prove it didn't happen!"

Volcanic eruptions do cause insects, frogs etc to flee from it's path, they can pollute rivers and kill fish and they certainly can darken the sky.
Reply
#27
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 8:23 am)Zone Wrote:
(September 19, 2013 at 8:16 am)apophenia Wrote: "You can't prove it didn't happen!"

Volcanic eruptions do cause insects, frogs etc to flee from it's path, they can pollute rivers and kill fish and they certainly can darken the sky.

That wooshing sound you just heard was the point flying directly over your head.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#28
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
I don't think there was a point if I'm not saying anything like that. I'm giving a possible naturalistic explanation for a perceived supernatural event.
Reply
#29
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
There was a point, and it was that you approach scientific subjects from the wrong direction. Rather than look for where evidence leads, you speculate on what could be.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#30
RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
(September 19, 2013 at 10:27 am)Faith No More Wrote: There was a point, and it was that you approach scientific subjects from the wrong direction. Rather than look for where evidence leads, you speculate on what could be.

It's called a hypothesis? There is evidence you can use to back this up.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)