|
|
|
Red_Machine
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2002 : 20:00:07
|
I get the periodic email from the ICR entitled "Acts & Facts Online"-- a list of annoucements related to Creationism and the ICR's 'research.' This week, I saw this:
Who were the "Giants" in the Days of Noah?
The article is (as is the author) a joke. What struck me, though, was Morris' suggestion that ancient authors could not have know about modern genetics.
Why is it that Creationists often try to reconcile the biblical account of creation with modern science, and then defend it by saying that the ancients simply didn't understand whatever modern explanation is offered, and thus had to write about it in terms of magic and the supernatural?
Why would "magic" be more satisfying to an ancient than DNA? Indeed, to an ancient writer, they would be the same, right? Why wouldn't 'god' simply explain things in terms of how they are, instead of couched in archaic terms?
Again, why is it easier to think that an ancient writer would accept "magic" but not "DNA"? Perhaps I'm off track on this, but to me, it's just not satisfactory.
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2002 : 00:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Maybe because the Creationists' arguements tend to sink under scrutiny.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2002 : 19:22:10 [Permalink]
|
"All religons are confusing. It's what keeps priests in business."
From 'The Last Tomb', I forget the author.
f
"They will take away my Darwin Fish only when they pry it from my cold, dead bumper!" |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2002 : 19:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Here's an interesting piece (to me at least) about "giants" from the Shoreline Community College (up in Washington) Geology dept.
quote: The Remains of Large Vertebrates Inspired Legends About Human Giants, Mythical Monsters, and Terrifying Animals
Perhaps as long as five thousand years ago, probably while exploring a cave at the foot of Mount Etna in Sicily, Achaean sailors from ancient Greece discovered some remains that looked like human bones, only huge. How frightened they must have been!
They also found a skull, then another-just as big, just as forbidding-with a single ominous socket in the middle of the forehead. No question but that the bones belonged to gigantic humans, appalling one-eyed monsters that probably dwelled on the island and whose burial place the sailors had unwittingly desecrated. Best to clear out posthaste and move on! When these sailors spun their tales to friends and families back home, conjuring up visions of fearsome creatures, their listeners took heart from the knowledge that the discoveries were so far away.
Years, centuries went by, and the stories were passed along from generation to generation. In the 5th century BC Greek historian Thucydides asserted that Cyclopia, the mythical land of the giant Cyclopes-where the hapless Odysseus looked on as Poseidon's son, the Cyclops Polyphemus, devoured several of his shipmates-lay on the slopes of Mount Etna.
This view was corroborated by his contemporary, the philosopher Empedocles of Agrigentum. But they were both off the mark. Cyclopia-that is the land of the giants described by Homer-more likely lay farther north near Naples. More importantly however their assertions perpetuated a widely held belief. The idea that there really were such things as Cyclopes went unchallenged for centuries and they were joined by many other giants.
In Pliny we read that the skeleton of the mythological hunter Orion, 26 cubits (about 35 feet) long, was discovered on the island of Crete. The remains of Trojan War hero Ajax were said to have been discovered at Salamis, an ancient city on the east coast of Cyprus. The Arabs too acknowledged belief in the existance of human giants.
During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the hold of myths about giants was stronger than ever. From a catalogue compiled in 1558, we know that between the 14th and 16th.centuries quite a few "giants" bones were still turnmg up m Sicily.
The creatures people used to call Cyclopes really did exist, only hundreds of thousands of years earlier than had been thought; so did the closely related giants whose bones had been unearthed at various other sites. Contrary to legend-- and their huge molars notwithstanding-- they had never tasted the tiniest morsel of human flesh. In fact, they were vegetarians! And they all had small, round, peaceful eyes-- not one, but two of them. The baffling forehead socket turned out to be a large median nasal opening that boasted a trunk when the creatures were alive. The creatures were in reality harmless dwarf elephants that roamed the shores and islands of the Mediterranean early in the Quaternary period, over 1.5 million years ago.
By the time humans stumbled upon their remains, these elephants had all died out, as had their cousins throughout Europe. The bones were real enough; the human giants they supposedly belonged to, however, were figments of the imagination.
------- The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2002 : 05:30:44 [Permalink]
|
To be honest I don't think much of any of these 'x inspired tales about y' explanations. Fossils are far more likely than explanations involving aliens or stuff, and I'd be willing to belive them if there was a little more evidence then just this is how it could have been', but I think they all insult the human imagination.
It does not take much imagination to make up a giant human. And Ideas of Dinosaurs remains being responsible for tales of dragons are even less beliveable.
Refering to this particular theory about Cyclopes. Wasn't the part with the one eye something that was interpreted much later into the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|