Myths and Legends

The Tower of Babel story is generally regarded as a myth, except by those holy rollers who believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. I would be surprised if anybody, except a roller, would cite it as an actual explanation of why people speak different languages. Like many myths, the story gives us a clue about the people who told it. Notice that I said "clue", not "proof". To my knowledge, those ziggurat ruins you mentioned are only found in Mesopotamia, not in either Israel or Egypt. The fact that a story about a ziggurat appears in the Hebrew Bible suggests that the Hebrews might have originated in Mesopotamia, which would tend to confirm the story of Abraham. Notice that I said "tend to confirm", not "prove beyond a reasonable doubt".

Of course Abraham himself might be mythological, but he also might be legendary. Although the two words are often used interchangeably, I think a distinction should be made for the purposes of this discussion. In the Beaglesonian Dictionary, a myth is a story that has little or no basis in historical fact, while a legend is a story that has some factual basis, but has been embellished and exaggerated with fictional elements. For example, Paul Bunyan is mythological, while Davy Crockett is legendary. Adam and Eve are almost certainly mythological, while Jesus is most likely legendary. I have always thought of Moses as a legendary character, but am now willing to admit that he might be mythological. At no time did I believe or assert that everything in the Moses story is literally true.

The assertion that North American wolves have never killed anybody has been around for a long time, although I don't know how many people have ever believed it. I also don't know its origin, but I have read it many times over the years. I have always doubted that assertion, but I never had anything with which to challenge it until recently.

The cougar story I told you about came from our local newspaper. As I remember it, the only evidence was a trail cam photo. The experts pronounced it "confirmed" based on a critical analysis of the photo. Other cougar photos in the past have been debunked because the size of the cat was out of proportion to its surroundings, while this one wasn't. Of course, a certain amount of memory loss is normal at my age, so you may be right about the DNA. There was another story a few years ago about some scientists who went out looking for cougars in the Lower Peninsula, I believe it was Emmet County, which is adjacent to Cheboygan County's western border. They didn't sight any cougars, but they found a really big pile of shit that was identified as cougar shit by laboratory analysis. I visualized a group of white coated scientists gathered around a lab table saying "Looks like cougar shit. Smells like cougar shit. Tastes like cougar shit. It must be cougar shit. Good thing nobody stepped in it!"

That's the thing about "Catch 22", I just didn't like the story, I thought it was stupid. How's that for a scientific analysis?