so what if i cant show you today. it existed in the past.
it was quite big.
its having been smaller than desired or intended is not the question
just to give you an idea of how old the pyramids are
mammoths were still around when they were first built
Regardless of how old they are...the pyramids are at least real. Their existence can be proven. Because we can literally visit them today.
Show me Noah's Ark.
I'll wait.
lol
Even if for some reason you took creationism at its word, the pyramids still happened before the ark did.
The pyramids were built sometime in 26302610 BCE while the earliest creationist claim I could find says the flood happened 2472 BCE
isnt there a similar ark story inscribed inside one of the pyramids themselves? Or maybe Im thinking of Sumerian tablets
That only works if you assume all "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) believe in Bishop Ussher's timeline or "Young Earth Creationism", which many don't.
It also doesn't help that the Ark of Utnapishtim story (which is very clearly Noah's Ark with a different coat of paint) says the Great Flood happened closer to 2800BC.
It just means Christianity stole all the myths and claimed them as their own.
A new user!
Can't wait to see what fun and interesting topics they post here!
The ark as described in the Bible would not have been able to fit two of every type of insect... let alone two of every animal.Yhwh was clearly a timelord and the ark was his tardis
Every religion on Earth does that, some are just more subtle about it than others. Or did it long enough ago that we've mostly forgotten what they stole it from.
And it's not limited to religion. Plenty of countries will retroactively claim the achievements of their predecessors as their own, even if there's very little actual connection (ie, modern Egyptians having very few meaningful links to the people of ancient Egypt, most of England's current population being descended from Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans rather than the original inhabitants of the island, etc).
Most heroic myths and myth cycles are an amalgamation of stories told over centuries about various people that slowly sort of coalesce into a single tale of one legendary figure (or group) that bears almost no relation to the actual person who may have once existed. Or tell vastly exaggerated or modified versions of stories and events that probably happened, if not in the precise way people claim they did.
Then there's also the problem of people viewing things literally that were originally meant symbolically, or which were retroactively used to explain certain things. An ancient Greek writer could, say, write a story about a mythical island paradise that eventually sank because of their own hubris, and never mean it as a description of an actual place, but more as a thinly-veiled criticism of his own people, his own time, and the failings he saw in his own government and culture. But then smug assholes a thousand years later who are firmly convinced that everyone in the past was an idiot just assume that everyone believed that and took the story at face value because things like allegory and metaphor were clearly too advanced for those primitive savages in the past.
Even "The Father of History" was far more concerned with telling an exciting story when he chronicled events which actually happened. Sometimes that meant dramatically inflating troop numbers or casualties to make things more dramatic. Sometimes that might be conflating unrelated events in ways that made them seem connected, essentially stealing parts of someone else's story to become part of your own. And sometimes it meant just flat-out lying because the lie made for a better story.
Humans are basically hard-coded to view the world through the lens of stories . But we're much fuzzier when it comes to the whole " truth " thing.
Can you show me the car I owned in 1999? Pretty sure you can't.
Does that mean it never existed and I'm just lying about having owned it?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
(And I say that as someone who doesn't believe Noah's Ark was real.)
Guys, sit down.i guess polling is for opinion, probably
This may come as a shock.
I don't think @ice-cream 's account will last long.
i guess polling is for opinion, probablyI guess you're the one who made the poll, probably.
without us getting too sidetracked , let's just all agree at least one person who voted didn't know the right answerLet's agree that this might be a Duncan alt account.
without us getting too sidetracked , let's just all agree at least one person who voted didn't know the right answer
Every religion on Earth does that, some are just more subtle about it than others. Or did it long enough ago that we've mostly forgotten what they stole it from.
And it's not limited to religion. Plenty of countries will retroactively claim the achievements of their predecessors as their own, even if there's very little actual connection (ie, modern Egyptians having very few meaningful links to the people of ancient Egypt, most of England's current population being descended from Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans rather than the original inhabitants of the island, etc).
Most heroic myths and myth cycles are an amalgamation of stories told over centuries about various people that slowly sort of coalesce into a single tale of one legendary figure (or group) that bears almost no relation to the actual person who may have once existed. Or tell vastly exaggerated or modified versions of stories and events that probably happened, if not in the precise way people claim they did.
Then there's also the problem of people viewing things literally that were originally meant symbolically, or which were retroactively used to explain certain things. An ancient Greek writer could, say, write a story about a mythical island paradise that eventually sank because of their own hubris, and never mean it as a description of an actual place, but more as a thinly-veiled criticism of his own people, his own time, and the failings he saw in his own government and culture. But then smug assholes a thousand years later who are firmly convinced that everyone in the past was an idiot just assume that everyone believed that and took the story at face value because things like allegory and metaphor were clearly too advanced for those primitive savages in the past.
Even "The Father of History" was far more concerned with telling an exciting story when he chronicled events which actually happened. Sometimes that meant dramatically inflating troop numbers or casualties to make things more dramatic. Sometimes that might be conflating unrelated events in ways that made them seem connected, essentially stealing parts of someone else's story to become part of your own. And sometimes it meant just flat-out lying because the lie made for a better story.
Humans are basically hard-coded to view the world through the lens of stories . But we're much fuzzier when it comes to the whole " truth " thing.
It's not my job to prove that your car from 1999 existed.
That's how the burden of proof works.
If someone wants to tell me about Noah's Ark as if it were a real thing, they need to provide evidence to back it up.
I believe the pyramids came first, because the ark never came to begin with.
The burden of proof is on whoever made the original claim.