Why I do not accept evolution part two.

Guy Threepwood said:

which are?

Click to expand...

It is testable. It is repeatable. It is falsifiable.

Grumman Tomcat said:

The use of the term 'myth' is a flame. You may not believe an event happened or may not believe in a concept, but the term 'myth' isn't allowed.

Back to your regular posting.

Click to expand...

Okay but what about my Trojan War example? It's considered part of Greek myth, but it is also proven to be a real historical event.

Strathos said:

Okay but what about my Trojan War example? It's considered part of Greek myth, but it is also proven to be a real historical event.

Click to expand...

i would let it go. I can accept not being able to use the m word since they do balance the books by banning calling science a religion. It is much better than the old days when two characters especially would try to claim that science was a religion. Baby steps.

Grumman Tomcat said:

The use of the term 'myth' is a flame. You may not believe an event happened or may not believe in a concept, but the term 'myth' isn't allowed.

Back to your regular posting.

Click to expand...

What about those posters who insist on calling science a religion?

Kylie said:

What about those posters who insist on calling science a religion?

Click to expand...

If you read the posts leading up to this that is termed flaming as well. Report them when they do it.

Subduction Zone said:

i would let it go. I can accept not being able to use the m word since they do balance the books by banning calling science a religion. It is much better than the old days when two characters especially would try to claim that science was a religion. Baby steps.

Click to expand...

I think the bigger issue is not having a valid alternative word. Myths are a specific type of story with a specific purpose. I agree that misuse of the word can cause offence, but what are we to call genuine myths? If we follow the logic here, nothing should be allowed to be called a religion, and I don't think that would be acceptable.

Bungle_Bear said:

I think the bigger issue is not having a valid alternative word. Myths are a specific type of story with a specific purpose. I agree that misuse of the word can cause offence, but what are we to call genuine myths? If we follow the logic here, nothing should be allowed to be called a religion, and I don't think that would be acceptable.

Click to expand...

Story, legend, tale. I guess calling events that did not happen myths is considered rubbing their noses in it a bit too much.

It is in regards to 2 Timothy 3 16 that probably sets them off. If the stories are morality tales that verse still applies. Calling it a myth may seem to take that away from them. So I suggest the term "morality tale". It is a little awkward but it still gets the point across.

Subduction Zone said:

Story, legend, tale. I guess calling events that did not happen myths is considered rubbing their noses in it a bit too much.

It is in regards to 2 Timothy 3 16 that probably sets them off. If the stories are morality tales that verse still applies. Calling it a myth may seem to take that away from them. So I suggest the term "morality tale". It is a little awkward but it still gets the point across.

Click to expand...

That, and it is true that in the uneducated popular understanding, a "myth" is a fictional story with no basis in historical events, and the term is generally used pejorativley.

Strathos said:

How old do you think it is?

Click to expand...

That probably depends more on your conception of what the ark was.

Given copper metallurgy is about 10,000 years old, at most, I'd say anything substantial in size is probably bounded by this as an upper limit.

Smaller all-wood boats are possible for older dates, but the dimensions and feasibility both really shrink without access to metal tools. A woven reed Coracle is a viable option, but it's really hard making one anything more than about 35 to 40 feet across.

Even so, wooden artifacts greater than 30,000 years old have survived. And if it he ark wasn't wholly wood, you'd expect the site would have plenty of other debris remaining.

Speedwell said:

That, and it is true that in the uneducated popular understanding, a "myth" is a fictional story with no basis in historical events, and the term is generally used pejorativley.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, no forum rule can stop me thinking of some of the Bible tales as myths, with all of the positive ethical, spiritual, personal and literary appreciation that such an appellation evokes. I can only regret the loss incurred through the adoption, by the forum, of the sense that only the perjorative, quasi-colloquial usage is real. At least they haven't done the the same for mystical.

Subduction Zone said:

Story, legend, tale.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the word myth has way more importance and substance to it than the word "legend" or "tale". You can respect a myth if only for it's historical value or literary quality. Legend and tale are just something someone heard over a campfire or made up. I can take Greek or Norse or Native American mythology seriously. Paul Bunyan not so much.

I can accept that UI cannot use the word "myth" in that sense since the came up with what I think of as the "dad rule" in regards to calling science a religion.

So, we are agreed then. Aussie Pete cannot accept evolution because it is a myth.

(Just trying to return us to the OP topic,)

Speedwell said:

That, and it is true that in the uneducated popular understanding, a "myth" is a fictional story with no basis in historical events, and the term is generally used pejorativley.

Click to expand...

Um, a myth IS a fictional story with no basis in historical events. I think you're confusing myth with legend.

A myth is a just so story, usually about something early in a culture's history and usually involving supernatural beings. A legend is an embellished story usually with a historical basis.

Bungle_Bear said:

Um, a myth IS a fictional story with no basis in historical events. I think you're confusing myth with legend.

A myth is a just so story, usually about something early in a culture's history and usually involving supernatural beings. A legend is an embellished story usually with a historical basis.

Click to expand...

Myth (noun): A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Speedwell said:

Myth (noun): A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much what I said. The error here is in using legend as part of the definition of myth when they are different things.

Legend vs Myth - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Bungle_Bear said:

Yep, pretty much what I said. The error here is in using legend as part of the definition of myth when they are different things.

Legend vs Myth - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Click to expand...

That's useful and I agree, but from their description of myth: "No evidence to prove it as fact." Nothing there suggests that referring to story as a myth is necessarily branding it a fictitious account with no basis in realty. The "Garden" story is a good example of a story which tells of how we got to be the way we are. The kind of story that some--nobody in this forum, of course--might refer to as a form of myth called an etiology, or "just so" story. The way we are is a fact, and the etiology is based on that fact. Just like Kipling's The Elephant's Child is based on the fact that elephants have trunks.

Speedwell said:

That's useful and I agree, but from their description of myth: "No evidence to prove it as fact." Nothing there suggests that referring to story as a myth is necessarily branding it a fictitious account with no basis in realty. The "Garden" story is a good example of a story which tells of how we got to be the way we are. The kind of story that some--nobody in this forum, of course--might refer to as a form of myth called an etiology, or "just so" story. The way we are is a fact, and the etiology is based on that fact. Just like Kipling's The Elephant's Child is based on the fact that elephants have trunks.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. Genesis is, by definition, a myth. That is not a derogatory put down, it's a simple description of the type of story it is. Banning the use of a technically correct term simply because some people don't like it is not really a great way to deal with a problem. As I said earlier, I have no problem with penalizing improper use of the word myth, but it's a slippery slope when you start banning words because a minority of users dislike (probably through misunderstanding) that word.

Bungle_Bear said:

That's the problem. Genesis is, by definition, a myth. That is not a derogatory put down, it's a simple description of the type of story it is. Banning the use of a technically correct term simply because some people don't like it is not really a great way to deal with a problem. As I said earlier, I have no problem with penalizing improper use of the word myth, but it's a slippery slope when you start banning words because a minority of users dislike (probably through misunderstanding) that word.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I can also live with what I see as a bit of compromise. I remember the time before the 'dad rule" when accusations that science was a religion were daily events. If they enforce the one I do not mind that much if they object to the word "myth". Though technically correct and usually not used as a slur I can see how it might send some over the edge.

Subduction Zone said:

I agree, but I can also live with what I see as a bit of compromise. I remember the time before the 'dad rule" when accusations that science was a religion were daily events. If they enforce the one I do not mind that much if they object to the word "myth". Though technically correct and usually not used as a slur I can see how it might send some over the edge.

Click to expand...

Can we start complaining about misuse of "theory" in the science forum? Now that's a misuse of a word that really needs to be stopped