Talk:The Flood
From EvoWiki
Link
Probably ought to add Pat James's classic and frequently reposted article, "Torpedo Ye Arke": http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=01HW.B7E3018500055F410E69A450%40enews.newsguy.com
Possible vs probable
"Possible origin in myth" is obvious and does not need any backup. Earlier similar accounts really points to "probable". --tk (t) 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, as the possibility remains that older telling of the Flood more faithful t the Jewish account remains to be discovered. And this language is inherently religiously biased. Hardly the tone one would want to take in an encyclopedia. Abyssal leviathin 13:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- If that possibility did not remain, the right word would be "proven". Since it does, the best word is "probable". It looks like a myth, it smells like a myth etc... so it probably is a myth. Do you really want to suggest that the older flood myths (Gilgamesh and friends, involving multiple gods) are a serious possibility?
- This site is not a postmodern one ("anything goes"), it is a scientific one. That is, we do weigh evidence and call a spade a spade instead of saying "maybe this, maybe that" (except when appropriate). --tk (t) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Plus, only the Babylonian and the Jewish flood myths, maybe the Greek flood myth, too, have the sole survivor (and his family) make provisions to save the animals.--Mr A. 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- To me it still sounds like the wording is more preachy in an atheistic sort of way than it is helpful to the article. I still think possible better fits the point being conveyed without stepping on peoples' toes unnecessarily. Abyssal leviathin 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Possible" would step on my toes - the logic would suffer. We can drop the word altogether if you want, but the message of
- "There are a number of antecedents to the biblical flood story that point to a possible mythological origin"
- is
- "without those antecedents, a mythological origin would be utterly impossible, but since they are there, origin in myth cannot be entirely dismissed".
- As it is, mythological origin has to be considered anyway, with or without known predecessors, and the predecessors add much weight to the consideration. We can try to find another way to say that if necessary, but "point to a possible mythological origin" is not that way. It would be distortion of the logic. --tk (t) 07:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Possible" would step on my toes - the logic would suffer. We can drop the word altogether if you want, but the message of
- To me it still sounds like the wording is more preachy in an atheistic sort of way than it is helpful to the article. I still think possible better fits the point being conveyed without stepping on peoples' toes unnecessarily. Abyssal leviathin 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Plus, only the Babylonian and the Jewish flood myths, maybe the Greek flood myth, too, have the sole survivor (and his family) make provisions to save the animals.--Mr A. 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- This site is not a postmodern one ("anything goes"), it is a scientific one. That is, we do weigh evidence and call a spade a spade instead of saying "maybe this, maybe that" (except when appropriate). --tk (t) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
