If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a three thousand year old myth was converted to a cult that has no value, specifically in the field of science. Then you imply that Wikipedia articles are unreliable.
Do you have any proof to corroborate your hypothesis?
It seems to me that you consider yourself more intelligent that the people that existed thousands of years ago, yet, I think that you or I can not construct a *myth* that will last a year, let alone a thousand or more.
I have not seen any evidence that the people three thousand years ago had any less brain capacity than we have today. The people that wrote the *myth* as you called it, had to be able to read and write, and that is something that some people even today can not do.
I do not see the reason why you consider it *absurd* to point out that there is a relationship between the words “heaven” and “space” or “mass” and “earth” or “light” and “energy.” Does earth not contain mass and is light not energy?
Off Topic » in reply to You're weaseling.
Curious.
The whole thread (25 posts)
- Comment to hank and DanS, from Space board. (originally from Mysteries of the Multiverse)
- Dissecting a photon; for Dan S and frank.
- Good questions
- Questions about your answers.
- By the numbers
- Differences in thought patterns.
- Beware of visualizing how the universe ought to be.
- Differences in thought patterns.
- By the numbers
- Questions about your answers.
- Good questions
- We have all been here before...
- If the medium is taken away . . . ?
- Dissecting a photon; for Dan S and frank.