So, you're saying these cultures of old just 'made up' the destruction of virtually everyone, because it suits their psychological need to demonstrate the cleansing attributes of water??
No, what probably happened was severe local floods combined with a limited understanding of the world at large to make a flood story about the entire world being flooded. This was rationalized by saying that a god or gods had destroyed the wicked or evil people in society.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we are meant to die at 40
Speaking from an evolutionary perspective, yes it does.
... and what I was referring to genetically, the systems of genetic repair make it so that a humans life is maximum around 120 years. Also, in previous times we had a 'lower life expectancy' because the numbers were also counting infant mortality, BUT, even pre-industrial times, if you managed to live past 5 years old, you could expect to live up to 75-80 years... the problem was that all too often there were problems with child birth, or the mother dying while giving birth, etc...
Our life expectancy is increasing due to a myriad of factors. I'm sure in 100 years, 120 will be the new 80.
Care to elaborate on this one??
Science and History in the Bible
Right, but you're neglecting one point... it's the VERY common thread that it was 'GOD(S)' that flooded the earth... So, if the assumption is that there is no god, then naturally, it would be impossible... so, to make this case proper you must thoroughly disprove god, a task that's equally as impossible as proving its existence.
Erm...no. We can demonstrate there was no global flood with a basic knowledge of geology and we know the natural causes for a flood.
You utterly missed the point... where is the 'learning' to build pyramids??
The process is actually pretty apparent. The Egyptians started with small mudbrick structures called
mastabas. These grew larger and larger until they became step pyramids. Those grew even larger still and had their outer facing sheared off to create the Egyptian pyramid we are so familiar with.
Where is the learning to build a square so flush that it would nearly require the use of laser leveling, and further the allignment of this square to be within a fraction of a degree of true north?
A level is not exactly rocket science and we do have indications they had and used such tools.
I know that there are other smaller, assumed previous pyramids... like 2 or 3 of them... but even then there was a HUGE jump in the knowleged required in those to the pristine workmanship in the great pyramids.
Not actually. The pyramids were an amazing feat of engineering and extremely impressive for people who didnt even have the wheel and used copper tools, dont get me wrong. But they are not miraculous structures.
I'd have to see it to believe it... I mean, the transporting of the stones alone with today's technology would be a feat...
They're called trucks. The average stone used in construction was about 30 tons (IIRC). A flat-bed could handle 30 tons if it was careful.
And, somewhat less relevant, a slave population worked to death is hardly the ideal 'dedicated work force'.
The people who built the pyramids were not slaves. Hollywood was wrong.
We have indications of small tombs built for people who died during the construction, some of them common laborers. That isnt something that would be afforded to a slave.
The guideline for such planning is that there be the pre-requisite of writing, this was not the case, therefore it is an anomaly.
No, it isnt. A sculptor can easily create a large sculpture without needing to write anything down. Granted it makes the process MUCH easier to do so, but it's far from impossible. Especially if that sculpture is not complex. Moai are very interesting and beautiful in their own way, but they are hardly complex, technical pieces.
No of course these are all inaccurate... and my 'flawed interpretation' of history is mostly based on the misunderstanding of my point...
I have demonstrated twice now that your fundamental understanding of history seems to have some major holes.
Did you actually try to tell me that the Giza pyramids / sphinx are unrelated to celestial bodies???
I'm not aware of any deliberate attempts by the Egyptians to align their structures with the stars.
Such an action would be out of line with their beliefs. AFAIK, the Egyptians had no system of astrology until Alexander the Great and while they believed Pharaoh ascended to heaven to live among the stars, there's no indication they believed the stars were fixed. The stars were thought to be part of the body of Nut, the goddess of the sky who swallowed the sun and moon every night and gave birth to them again each day.
See but your demand of proof for something so ancient, that we don't even KNOW when these stories originated (yes, the texts can have their origin tracked to an extent, but NOT the stories... ) The only FACT is that the facts have been lost with time, and the best we have is our GUESSES and extrapolations... so, there IS NO PROOF regardless... and that was part of my point.
We can demonstrate that your theories about what happened are incorrect.
I wouldn't even know where to start on this one... but to not have made the connection makes me wonder if you've read past the 20 first pages of the bible. Not that this would be a bad thing...
I'm not Christian so I dont make a habit to read the bible.
Take one of the examples of 'god' destroying a city... it's always done because of the 'evils' within that city... Now, as a literal interpretation you could say god sits around waiting for places to become corrupt, gets disgusted and destroys the city... OR, it could be something more subtle, that once a society allows corruption and evils to take old and loses the value of the good, that inevitably comes a time where the society will fall under the weight of it's own corruption. Is it 'god' destroying the society? Is it the results of the TRUTHS behind the story that a corrupt society will inevitably collapse? Etc...
That's just one example for the sake of brevity.
Except you were previously alluding to the idea that the flood and similar stories were NOT allegorical in nature.
