Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,211 Year: 5,468/9,624 Month: 493/323 Week: 133/204 Day: 3/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foreveryoung Discussions
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 34 of 103 (677522)
10-30-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 11:54 PM


I'm not here to attack you for coming to alternate conclusions from your textbooks and your professors. I've done it on many an occasion and even if you're wrong, it takes courage and perspicacity. It's to be commended even when it's misguided.
But the way you do that in an effective way is, you talk about the evidence. Evidence is what trumps your professor and your textbook. Evidence trumps intuition. That's why your textbooks have copious bibliographies; that's why you have to justify your conclusions in your science classes with your experimental results and not just with your say-so.
It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old.
Hopefully it was the evidence that brought you around. I, for one, would be pretty interested to hear you talk more about the process that brought you around. It doesn't even have to be an argument - I just want to hear what you have to say about that. It's something that I'm interested in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 11:54 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 55 of 103 (677598)
10-30-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 2:38 PM


Interesting. Thanks for your reply.
Someone finally took the time to explain to me what it meant for an ancient writing to be in mythological form. I always fought against this notion because the atheists always said genesis was mythological, but they meant it as in a complete fabrication or fairy tale.
You know, I remember when I was told the exact same thing. I was taking a freshman-level course on Greek mythology, and I remember the professor telling us that "mythical" didn't mean "made-up" or "nonsense"; mythology means illustrating what is true by way of a story. It really opened mythology up to me, and made me think about art and stories in a new kind of way.
Romeo and Juliet is a kind of mythology, in that it tells us something true about love without being a literally true story. Indeed, you're right to note that ancient peoples would have been very mythologically-oriented; certainly they had a concept of "truth" and "lies", but the idea that history would be something for which there would be "true" or "false" versions of is an idea they would find very alien. (It's also an idea a lot of modern historians find alien.) They would be more inclined to view history as something in terms of our version and theirs; that is, they would in part define their communities in terms of being all of the people who tell the same stories about what happened in the past.
Two separate phenomena that could not possibly influence one another were in such PRECISE agreement, I could not possibly maintain my position any further without a total denial of reality.
Well-put.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024