| allenmaher said: I think the point he was trying to make is that relying on religeous texts for history or science is a remarkably poor idea since so much of the books is disprovable. Treating the new testiment as history is almost as bad as assuming there was a historical flood. Though the story of the flood was mentioned in babylonian clay tablets several thousand years older than the jewish text which is almost a verbatim copy of a tablet found from 7th century BCE. Though it is clearly a religeous epic about Ea and Gilgamesh. There is no possible way a flood of that nature happened. 1. Numerically the number of species claimed to be on board is not posssible 2. There is not enough water on earth to make it remotely possible. 3. A flood of that size would leave easily noticable geological and geomorpholocial disruptions for which there is 0 evidence. 4. The amount of rain, 40 days and 40 nights really would not cut it, there is a limit to the amount of water the atmosphere can hold and precipitate. But if you want to argue the historical correctness of the story, it does have several old references for which there are primary sources (one step up on the historical evidence for Jesus). So I think it is a good example of why you should not treat religeous works as any thing other than a religeous work.
|
Thats all fine and good... but has nothing to do with this topic
