From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:35:10 GMT

In article <VJy2qB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org>, doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>> In article <4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson
>> >I find it quite interesting that so many different cultures, widely
>> >dispersed geographically, end up telling stories which have many common
>> >elements.
>> 
>> Why is it interesting?
>
>Well I guess when I see a pattern my interest is aroused.
>
>> Man tends to create his gods in his own image.  Man also worries about
>> mortality and about his other limitations.  Myths with gods that are like
>> men but with fewer limitations are what you would expect; they're not somethi
>> unusual that needs explanation.
>
>That is conventional wisdom. What does need explaining is why man
>changed at the end of the Bronze Age such that these 'stories' fell into
>disrepute. At least conventional wisdom doesn't have an answer for that.

Sure it does.  It's answer for that is simply that as technology and man's
understanding of the physical universe improves, the myths are no longer
necessary.  Now, why these myths should fall into disrepute at the end of the
bronze age rather than at some other time is another question.  Of course, it's
an irrelevent question, since its premise (that these myths fell into disrepute
at the end of the bronze age) is wrong.  Or haven't you talked to any
creationists lately?

>If the gods (immortals) were actually real people who hung around for a
>time and then left - which is what many of the myths state - then it
>makes sense that people would lose interest in these creatures when they
>were no longer around and active on earth.

Of course, the problem with this is that many of the things that were
attributed to these gods still happen.  We see no evidence that these gods
are around, yet we still have thunder, earthquakes, volcanos, and many other
phenomena that were once believed to be manifestations of gods.

>Inter-stellar garbage from the Bronze Age is not something many people
>are looking for. There is also the question of how many archaeologists
>would recognize such garbage even if they dug it up?

Oh, I imagine most archaeologists would consider finding steel artifacts in a
bronze-age site rather noteworthy, for example.

>But as any detective knows, eye-witness accounts, especially when there
>are several that agree on major details, is the best evidence going.

Actually, any detective knows that eye-witness accounts are just about the
worst evidence going.  It's the lawyers who like eye-witness accounts, because
juries tend to trust them.

>And
>whatever else you can say, we have eye-witness reports from the Bronze
>Age and those witnesses say there were a lot of very unusual people
>running about on earth.

That's a rather strong assertion.  Can you name even one specific Bronze-Age
person from whom we have such an eye-witness account?  If not, then you're not
talking about an eye-witness account, you're talking about hearsay.

>I think the onus of proof is on the skeptic, not the witness.

Please produce such a witness.

>The skeptic's job is to find some evidence to show that what the various
>witnesses report *could not be* what they say they are.

Please produce the witness (I'll settle for a deposition from one).

>We have a lot of indirect evidence and we have a lot of eye-witness
>reports from many parts of the world. All we're missing is the 'smoking
>gun'. 

Again, what are these so-called eye-witness reports?

>But say there is the wreckage of a Sirian space ship which crashed in
>Greece in the Bronze Age. And say someone finds it. Who is going to
>believe that person? Then say the gov't gets involved in an
>investigation. Would you be surprised if you were called in to help
>investigate something like that and then were sworn to secrecy and told
>to keep it under your hat?

Ah yes, now, like any good credulous true-believer, you drag in a conspiracy
theory.  The lack of evidence for your claim is proof that there's a conspiracy
covering up the evidence, so your claim MUST be true.

>Scorn is one of the most potent weapons against truth that exist. When a
>person is scorned or mocked for asserting something, the next person
>thinks twice about making the same assertion, even if he believes it.

You know, you're doing a fine job of illustrating some of the things that have
cropped up in the sci.skeptic FAQ.  Unfortunately, you didn't quite get this
one right.  It should have been "They laughed at (insert list of names,
probably including Galileo and Einstein here), therefore, since you're laughing
at me, I MUST be right."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.