[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] [QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"]You are hilarious. There is a massive population (including myself) that believe the Bible is true. I respect your opinion, but claiming it is a myth is your opinion. Plus, if you are so high and mighty about historical facts, give me empirical evidence of the separation of language. Don't tell me it arose because of the evolution and migration of early man because you are simply "claiming myths as historical facts." I have as much evidence as you for my beliefs, so what makes yours better? There is basically no such thing as "Proof" (as any scientist will tell you) as proof doesn't exist. Everything is theory. The most common theories are the ones most mainstream people believe, but as any scientist would explain, they are but theories because nothing is ever proven right, alternatives are just showed to be wrong. You can't show that the Bible is wrong, so it is still a theory that many believe in.
seabiscuit8686
- Just because you have a majority, doesn't mean you are right.
- It is a myth until proven true. All religious texts are myth and equally valid until they can be proven true.
- Its pretty obvious that language evolved. Its evolving even today. Look at Shakespearean English and compare it to modern English. And the Indo-European language group, made famous by the Aryan's in India and the production of Sanskrit along with other languages throughout the Middle East all the way up into Eastern Europe is more proof that languages share a common ancestor yet change over time.
- Mother in Sanskrit: Mata. In Greek: Matera. Latin: Mater. Persian: Madar. German: Mutter.
- All very similar, yet still different. All tracing their roots back to an Indo-European source.
- My beliefs are not beliefs. They are facts supported by evidence... evidence written into languages themselves. Anything that I may "believe" is something that I keep to myself and don't try to posit as truth when it clearly is not.
- You misrepresent science and the scientific definition of "theory."
- Scientists might explain them as "theories" but they would explain it different than what you would make it seem. A "theory" in science is an organized explanation of many provable and testable facts.
- Science doesn't deal in absolutes. The only "absolute" truth in the universe is mathematics. And it is merely a conceptualization. That doesn't make everything else "wrong." It just leaves it open for further evidence to either strengthen its truth, or to refute it. That's the beauty of science (unlike religion), it leaves itself open for adaptation and improvement.
- The Bible is wrong until you prove it right. It may be "right" by your faith to you, but as an historical document, it is as reliable as Lord of the Rings.
1) there is no such thing as being "proven true." 2) the Romance languages are related. Congratulations on stating the obvious. Where you fail is the fact that there are Romance languages and say, Germanic languages. They are NOT the same. So just because you have evolution of the base languages doesn't prove there isn't distinction between groups of languages. 3) There is no mistake on the term theory. A theory is the best explanation of observable facts, as you stated. The problem is, those facts could be misrepresented, hence why a theory is never itself fact. It is a fact that people speak different languages now. It is not a fact that this is because God caused it. That is a theory. It may not be the most common theory, but there is supporting evidence (the Bible - which has been shown to be historically accurate in many cases), and no theories that have yet refuted this. There are OTHER THEORIES, some more accepted than others, but no definitive answer - as is forbidden in science. 4) Your last point is hilarious. Any real scientist would tell you something is never proved right, it is proved wrong. There is a theory and until another theory comes along that explains something better, or proves the first theory incorrect, it is still a legitimate theory. You don't start assuming something is wrong, you assume it is right until something refutes it. That is called the scientific method. Example: Theory: I am a cow. Test: Determine how many stomachs I have. Result: I have one stomach Analysis: All known cows have 6 stomachs. I have one. End result: I am not a cow. You do not start this with a definitive as you suggest.
I may be wrong but I thought that a theory can become a scientific law after it has gone a very long time without being disproven, you know like the law of gravity? In all my years of Catholic school, all of my teachers told me that the Old Testament is not to be taken literally and is mostly symbolic. "There probably never was an Adam or Eve." most of teachers said, including nuns. My question is then, how is the New Testament any different? There is no more to proof the New Testament true than there is for the Old Testament. And no, finding locations where the stories took place is not proof, fiction can often taken place in real world settings. It seems to me either it all has to be true or none of it is.
Log in to comment