The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Can you support your position of which ones of King David were mythical?

Yes, can you support any of the Bible claims about him besides his existence?

 

[Kenny]

Yes, can you support any of the Bible claims about him besides his existence?

Ok... sure

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

King David’s Palace and the Millo

King David’s palace and the Millo, south of the Temple Mount in the City of David, identified using textual and archaeological evidence.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

There is more, of course.

Could you share your support for it being a mythology?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok... sure

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mesha Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

King David’s Palace and the Millo

King David’s palace and the Millo, south of the Temple Mount in the City of David, identified using textual and archaeological evidence.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

There is more, of course.

Could you share your support for it being a mythology?

Those just show that he existed. There is nothing that supports the stories of the Bible. There was a king David and he fought in some wars. Okay.

And yes, take the David and Goliath story. There are quite a few mythological elements to that story. Just the size of Goliath at 9' 9" as told in the Bible would make him more likely to be cripple than a might warrior. Humans when they get that size learn about the square cubed law in rather painful fashions. That is definitely mythological. Now there may be some rescue for the story since the Dead Sea scrolls That is said to lop three feet off of his height. They have him at 6' 9" a more reasonable height. Unfortunately it seems that some scholars prefer the mythical height:

How Tall Was Goliath? A Textual Dilemma

Through the discipline of textual criticism, we can have a high degree of certainty as to the content of the original Old Testament manuscripts.

www.crossway.org

Then there is the issue of the census. It appears that God was playing it both ways again, he "incited" David to take a census and then was ticked off when he did. Why would a census be a sin anyway? Gods acting nonsensically and unjustly show us that at least parts of the story are mythical:

2 Samuel 24:1–17 RSV - Again the anger of the… | Biblia

Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” So the king...

biblia.com

I am sure that there are other examples. Now, once again, do you have anything that shows that any of the Bible stories are true or accurate? Your examples did not really do that at all.

 

[Kenny]

Those just show that he existed. There is nothing that supports the stories of the Bible. There was a king David and he fought in some wars. Okay.

That is kind of skewed. The story is that King David existed and the reference House of David is correct- check
The story is that he was a king - check
That they had fought Moab as per book of Kings- check.
The story that he built a palace - check

So it DOES support the stories.

And yes, take the David and Goliath story. There are quite a few mythological elements to that story. Just the size of Goliath at 9' 9" as told in the Bible would make him more likely to be cripple than a might warrior. Humans when they get that size learn about the square cubed law in rather painful fashions. That is definitely mythological. Now there may be some rescue for the story since the Dead Sea scrolls That is said to lop three feet off of his height. They have him at 6' 9" a more reasonable height. Unfortunately it seems that some scholars prefer the mythical height:

How Tall Was Goliath? A Textual Dilemma

Through the discipline of textual criticism, we can have a high degree of certainty as to the content of the original Old Testament manuscripts.

www.crossway.org

No... that doesn't say the story was mythological - it says that different people stated different sizes in other areas. So the story isn't mythological... it actually happened in all of the references. We don't look to Josephus for exact understanding...

Then there is the issue of the census. It appears that God was playing it both ways again, he "incited" David to take a census and then was ticked off when he did. Why would a census be a sin anyway? Gods acting nonsensically and unjustly show us that at least parts of the story are mythical:

2 Samuel 24:1–17 RSV - Again the anger of the… | Biblia

Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” So the king...

biblia.com

Oops... you changed the subject... you aren't proving it is mythological - you are proving that you don't agree with it.

I am sure that there are other examples. Now, once again, do you have anything that shows that any of the Bible stories are true or accurate? Your examples did not really do that at all.

So... once again... what PROOF do you have that it is mythological?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is kind of skewed. The story is that King David existed and the reference House of David is correct- check
The story is that he was a king - check
That they had fought Moab as per book of Kings- check.
The story that he built a palace - check

So it DOES support the stories.

Sometimes it appears that you do not pay attention. I already agreed that he was a king. So you supported nothing. You needed to show that there is some truth to the Bible stories beyond that.

No... that doesn't say the story was mythological - it says that different people stated different sizes in other areas. So the story isn't mythological... it actually happened in all of the references. We don't look to Josephus for exact understanding...

And once again you were not paying attention as shown by your strawman. There were mythological elements was my claim. This clearly is such an example.

Oops... you changed the subject... you aren't proving it is mythological - you are proving that you don't agree with it.

And you still did not pay attention. I did not change the subject. you tried to use a strawman

So... once again... what PROOF do you have that it is mythological?

You keep repeating your errors.

 

[F1fan]

So, as we can see, you are on the side of the coin that stands for not believing.

Right. My side explains that belief in implausible ideas (like religious ideas) that not only lack evidence, but are also contrary to what we understand of reality, is irrational. Why are you on the other side of that coin?

I mentioned that and acknowledge that side of the coin. (or maybe a third side as stated at the end - edited/added)

You offered no reason for your side believing that is rational. Look how this thread was supposed to expose evolution in some way, and it did no such thing. It's only made Christianity look bad.

So, as we understand it, there are going to be two sides to the coin (edited - if not three sides) of what we see and hear.

A side that is objective and rational and the side that is biased and irrational.

Within the context of our faith (signature)

IMO, there are those who are on the edge of the coin... seeking and trying to understand. They are neither for or against... just seekers of truth.

Then they are naturally wise they will realize that following evidence and reasoning will lead to truth, and following faith and dogma won't.

 

[Heyo]

Oops... you changed the subject... you aren't proving it is mythological - you are proving that you don't agree with it.

Someone changed the subject somewhere from the Flood to King David.

The later may be anecdotal and exaggerated but it isn't impossible. Knowing science is being able to discern the impossible from the improbable.
When I read the Odyssey, I know that Circe may have existed but I also know that she didn't transform men into pigs (at least not literally).

 

[gnostic]

Nice statement but just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Did you know, that this same statement can be applied to just about anyone who follow any religion, including your own?

So…

… just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.​

The things are, the differences between sciences and religions, is that any model have to verify with objective empirical “evidence” & “data”, before it can be considered “science”.

There are no shortcuts..so if you don’t have observable “evidence” & “data”, then the model isn’t science, and certainly not reliable.

Religions on the other hand, don’t require evidence for objective verification. All that are required to accept any belief - whether this belief be one god or many, whether you believe in resurrection or reincarnation, whether it be magic or miracle, whether it be one scripture or another, etc - is “FAITH”.

Faith is about one’s acceptance or conviction that whatever you believe, you believe to be true. This faith is highly subjective, and biased.

For example, miracles defied nature. Non-living dust cannot transform into living body of fully-grown human being. Water cannot transform into wine. Light don’t just appear from no source, when some entities just speak a few words. Snake and donkey cannot speak to humans in human language, nor can humans understand snakes or donkey, not unless you believe Doctor Doolittle, Harry Potter or Mr Ed are real. Each of these miracles require magic. You would require faith to believe in such supernatural miracles, and there are nothing natural in believing in such stories.

more importantly, there are no evidence to support any of these miraculous & unnatural events. Things, such as stories that are taken on, by faith, reveal the naive of the person’s mind.

 

[Eli G]

Science and religion are not antagonistic. That is an atheist myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science and religion are not antagonistic. That is an atheist myth.

It depends upon the religion. If you deny reality, then yes they are antagonistic.

 

[Heyo]

It depends upon the religion. If you deny reality, then yes they are antagonistic.

Is there a religion that doesn't deny reality?

 

[Eli G]

Is there a religion that doesn't deny reality?

Do you know what reality is?

Science DOES NOT DICTATE what reality is. Scientists observe the environment and study it, to discover something. Many times they misinterpret what they see, and have to rectify over time.

The Bible says that mankind can never come to know all of God's handiwork. Pretending that science dictates what reality is is the height of arrogance.

Eccl. 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what reality is?

Science DOES NOT DICTATE what reality is. Scientists observe the environment and study it, to discover something. Many times they misinterpret what they see, and have to rectify over time.

The Bible says that mankind can never come to know all of God's handiwork. Pretending that science dictates what reality is is the height of arrogance.

Eccl. 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

I have a book that says that some day man will know everything. How do you know which book is right?

 

[Heyo]

Do you know what reality is?

Science DOES NOT DICTATE what reality is. Scientists observe the environment and study it, to discover something. Many times they misinterpret what they see, and have to rectify over time.

Correct. And all religion I know of in some way either deny what science has discovered or contradict the current interpretation.

But maybe you know a religion that is in accord with all of sciences observations and interpretation?

The Bible says that mankind can never come to know all of God's handiwork. Pretending that science dictates what reality is is the height of arrogance.

Christianity is not among those hypothetical religions. All 41,000+ denominations are not only in conflict with each other but also with science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you know what reality is?

Science DOES NOT DICTATE what reality is. Scientists observe the environment and study it, to discover something. Many times they misinterpret what they see, and have to rectify over time.

The Bible says that mankind can never come to know all of God's handiwork. Pretending that science dictates what reality is is the height of arrogance.

Eccl. 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

Surely the height of arrogance is believing that any particular religious text is all that one needs to define reality, and if science discovers anything to show any differences then science must be wrong - as displayed so often on RF - as to evolution, as to our moral nature, as to humans beings the ultimate and only intelligent/important life, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When did life on Earth begin?
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Scientists think that by 4.3 billion years ago, Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils, however, are only 3.7 billion years old. During that 600 million-year window, life may have emerged repeatedly, only to be snuffed out by catastrophic collisions with asteroids and comets.

A lot of faith positions with those words.

No. Faith positions would be if these things were said as a matter of truth/fact, without the intellectually honest language you are objecting to.
Science is the collective attempt of piecing things together starting with the evidence.
The above are the conclusions of the current set of evidence at our disposal. And whenever further evidence surfaces, so far these conclusions are only confirmed time and again.

You'll find that any proper scientific paper or article or textbook, is going to be using such tentative language.
Again, it's called intellectual honesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know what reality is?

Science DOES NOT DICTATE what reality is.

Indeed. Science is a methodology to find out what reality is and how it works.
And going by track record, it is the best tool at our disposal to uncover what reality is and how it works.

Scientists observe the environment and study it, to discover something. Many times they misinterpret what they see, and have to rectify over time.

Yeah. It's called "learning" and "progress".

The Bible says that mankind can never come to know all of God's handiwork.

Star Wars says that we shouldn't fall for the Dark Side of The Force.
Lord of the Rings says that there is this One Ring to rull them all and that it's a bad thing.

Pretending that science dictates what reality is is the height of arrogance.

So is arguing strawmen.

Eccl. 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

There can be only one!
- Duncan Macleod

 

[Kenny]

Sometimes it appears that you do not pay attention. I already agreed that he was a king. So you supported nothing. You needed to show that there is some truth to the Bible stories beyond that.


And once again you were not paying attention as shown by your strawman. There were mythological elements was my claim. This clearly is such an example.


And you still did not pay attention. I did not change the subject. you tried to use a strawman


You keep repeating your errors.

Thank you for not prooving your point with facts. Daniel Boone has mythological stories... but there is one story that is true. The Bible is true.

 

[Kenny]

Did you know, that this same statement can be applied to just about anyone who follow any religion, including your own?

So…

… just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.​

The things are, the differences between sciences and religions, is that any model have to verify with objective empirical “evidence” & “data”, before it can be considered “science”.

There are no shortcuts..so if you don’t have observable “evidence” & “data”, then the model isn’t science, and certainly not reliable.

Yes on the science... Not quite right on the religions although there is a thread of truth. If one does experience a miracle, it is evidence to that believer.

Religions on the other hand, don’t require evidence for objective verification. All that are required to accept any belief - whether this belief be one god or many, whether you believe in resurrection or reincarnation, whether it be magic or miracle, whether it be one scripture or another, etc - is “FAITH”.

Faith is about one’s acceptance or conviction that whatever you believe, you believe to be true. This faith is highly subjective, and biased.

Not quite right although their foolishness and presumption propped up as faith which it is not.

There were recorded eye-witnesses to the resurrection. And when receives a miracle... it is hard data that is verifiable.

For example, miracles defied nature. Non-living dust cannot transform into living body of fully-grown human being. Water cannot transform into wine. Light don’t just appear from no source, when some entities just speak a few words. Snake and donkey cannot speak to humans in human language, nor can humans understand snakes or donkey, not unless you believe Doctor Doolittle, Harry Potter or Mr Ed are real. Each of these miracles require magic. You would require faith to believe in such supernatural miracles, and there are nothing natural in believing in such stories.

more importantly, there are no evidence to support any of these miraculous & unnatural events. Things, such as stories that are taken on, by faith, reveal the naive of the person’s mind.

Yes, the very nature of miracles is that it defies nature. I can tell you are on the non-believer side of the coin... and I accept that.

 

[Kenny]

No. Faith positions would be if these things were said as a matter of truth/fact, without the intellectually honest language you are objecting to.
Science is the collective attempt of piecing things together starting with the evidence.
The above are the conclusions of the current set of evidence at our disposal. And whenever further evidence surfaces, so far these conclusions are only confirmed time and again.

You'll find that any proper scientific paper or article or textbook, is going to be using such tentative language.
Again, it's called intellectual honesty.

I agree with your position on science. I would disagree with your understanding of faith. You use faith every day--you use it with intellectual honesty.

Have you gone to work with faith that they will not close the business before they pay you? That is honest faith with an intellectual component

So, can I assume you are on the side of the coin of non-belief?