....2
This is not casual question. You rightly asked to sit and think. I gave two awnsers since one side awnser is not possible.
1. Can be: yes if any old recorded story is an expression and propagation to basic nature.
2. Can not be: No if that old recorded story is not as above.
It will match, to our finding about cooking i.e inspite of about 2 million old, it is still has odds, means, couldn't yet become fully natural at par to basic nature.
Your answer was unnecessarily vague and evasive because it's very clear that you misunderstood the question. Jay Utah asked the question if you believe a story is true JUST because it is repeated. JUST because it is repeated (or recorded)! He did not ask the abundantly stupid question of whether a repeated story might be true. He did not ask whether any specific story is true, or why.
You repeatedly misunderstand basic ideas and questions. This is actually a one-sided question, and to answer it as if it were not is to misunderstand the question and to guarantee error. A "one side" answer is not only possible, it is necessary, if it is to be an answer at all.
Obviously a true story may be repeated, and a repeated story may be true. But a false story can also be repeated, and a repeated story may be false. Thus the answer to the question asked can only be "NO" to anyone but a manifest fool. A story cannot be shown to be true JUST because it is repeated. If you come up with any other answer you are mistaken.
e.t.a. apologies for using "repeated" here rather than "written down" or "recorded," but I think it's the same. It should be abundantly, trivially obvious that if you argue with anything anyone has ever written, you already know that the answer is, that simply writing a story down does not make it true. If the reverse were true, then every criticism others make of you would be necessarily true too, wouldn't it?
I repeat, this was not an ambiguous question. It is supremely important, I think, that you take the time to understand this, because thinking about it correctly might bear on one's understanding of other, basic, scientific ideas. If a single instance occurs of a repeated story being false, the answer to that question can only be one thing. Reread that sentence again until you understand what I just said. The question was about whether repetition
alone makes a story true. If a single instance exists of a repeated story being false, the question is, necessarily, answered. Any answer but the negative is a mistake.
