Creation Science

[crjmurray]

So who said David and Solomon were purely mythological figures?

 

[lesliedellow]

So who said David and Solomon were purely mythological figures?

The new atheists are in love with the argument from silence, and, "There is no evidence David ever existed," used to be one of their favourites, until the evidence showed up.

 

[crjmurray]

The new atheists are in love with the argument from silence, and, "There is no evidence David ever existed," used to be one of their favourites, until the evidence showed up.

Anyone specifically?

 

[lasthero]

The new atheists are in love with the argument from silence, and, "There is no evidence David ever existed," used to be one of their favourites, until the evidence showed up.

I've honestly never heard that argument made. I'm not even sure what the reasoning behind it would be.

 

[lesliedellow]

Anyone specifically?

No one specifically. "Nazareth never existed in the first century," was another one which had to go by the wayside, when a first century house was dug up in Nazareth.

Somebody by the name of Philip R Davies was one of those who opined that David never existed. He saw fit to compare him with King Arthur.

 

[MikeEnders]

The new atheists are in love with the argument from silence, and, "There is no evidence David ever existed," used to be one of their favourites, until the evidence showed up.

In fact some atheist still do. I was in a debate with one about five months ago and he is still sticking his head in the sand claiming the recent finds can't be trusted. Moses and Egypt will be next. There should be yet another book out by the end of the year that makes the case as some already have that we are identifying the wrong Pharaoh as the one that ruled over Moses. The weirdse t one to me is the abraham is mythical claim - Abraham wouldn't have any archaeological evidence. He was practically bedouin in life style.

 

[crjmurray]

"I think that the tradition about David may have a historical basis; and he’s not possibly a completely invented character, only mostly invented. I think Solomon is a totally invented character, but the reasons are very technical...."

Source:

http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/video-gallery/d/david-and-solomon-davies.aspx

Seems like Mike could have answered this fairly easily.

 

[lesliedellow]

I've honestly never heard that argument made. I'm not even sure what the reasoning behind it would be.

Who needs reasons, when they can preen themselves on their oh so sophisticated skepticism?

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/david.htm

 

[lasthero]

"I think that the tradition about David may have a historical basis; and he’s not possibly a completely invented character, only mostly invented. I think Solomon is a totally invented character, but the reasons are very technical...."

Source:

http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/video-gallery/d/david-and-solomon-davies.aspx

Seems like Mike could have answered this fairly easily.

Thanks.

 

[lasthero]

Who needs reasons, when they can preen themselves on their oh so sophisticated skepticism?

Seems silly. Whethere

No one specifically. "Nazareth never existed in the first century," was another one which had to go by the wayside, when a first century house was dug up in Nazareth.

Somebody by the name of Philip R Davies was one of those who opined that David never existed. He saw fit to compare him with King Arthur.

But comparing him to Arthur isn't the same as saying he never existed. There's strong evidence that Arthurian lore is based around an actual individual. Same with Hercules and Robin Hood and, I think, Beowulf. Actual individuals who might have done real things, but not all the extreme thjngs attributed to them.

 

[MikeEnders]

http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/video-gallery/d/david-and-solomon-davies.aspx

Seems like Mike could have answered this fairly easily.

Yep i could have even added Finkelstein (who has had to modify his positions several times) but when a poster tells me that a legit unbiased source saying the same thing I am saying isn't any kind of confirmation or support for what I said I certainly am not going to reward ignorance by doing the work for them . IF you are going to deny such a legit source then it behooves you to do the homework not beg someone give you a shortcut to it.

 

[lasthero]

Yep i could have even added Finkelstein (who has had to modify his positions several times) but when a poster tells me that a legit unbiased source saying the same thing I am saying isn't any kind of confirmation or support for what I said I certainly am not going to reward ignorance by doing the work for them .

Repeating a claim doesn't confirm it. That's still true. Also, I never at any point said you were wrong, only that your source didn't answer the question.

you are going to deny such a legit source then it behooves you to do the homework not beg someone give you a shortcut to it.

I repeatedly said it was fine if you didn't want to answer. That's not begging.

 

[crjmurray]

Yep i could have even added Finkelstein (who has had to modify his positions several times) but when a poster tells me that a legit unbiased source saying the same thing I am saying isn't any kind of confirmation or support for what I said I certainly am not going to reward ignorance by doing the work for them . IF you are going to deny such a legit source then it behooves you to do the homework not beg someone give you a shortcut to it.

It took me what, two responses from Leslie to get a name and actually get the question answered. That's how this should work. One person makes a claim. One person questions it. The first person provides information to back up their claim. The second person examines the information and forms a conclusion. Providing a source that only repeats the original claim but does not provide any facts to back it up is not sufficient support.

 

[lasthero]

It took me what, two responses from Leslie to get a name and actually get the question answered. That's how this should work. One person makes a claim. One person questions it. The first person provides information to back up their claim. The second person examines the information and forms a conclusion. Providing a source that only repeats the original claim but does not provide any facts to back it up is not sufficient support.

Exactly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have missed the point, intentionally or not I don't know. lasthero (and myself) had never heard someone claim that David or Solomon were completely mythological. Providing a site that repeated your claim did nothing to provide us with information about your claim. Providing someone actually making that claim would have been a better response. Don't you agree?

Here is some archaeological evidence that supports their existence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

Another indirect support: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/archaeologists-and-quest-for-sheba-goldmines

 

[crjmurray]

Here is some archaeological evidence that supports their existence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

Another indirect support: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/archaeologists-and-quest-for-sheba-goldmines

Not the point, Once. Go back and read the past two pages.

 

[MikeEnders]

Here is some archaeological evidence that supports their existence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

Another indirect support: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/archaeologists-and-quest-for-sheba-goldmines

actually don't be put off by the claims - that is part of the point. Had a credible source made a claim of science that contradicted Creationists the present posters would not be making claims against the links being a credible supporting source. I have never seen that ANYWHERE on this forum. People even link to the claims of Talk origins. they may require additional sources but never have i read that a link from a credible source aobut the status of beliefs among scholars did not count. Shucks some of these same people even have relied on polls to determine what scientist think and a poll is a third party source affirming a position just as this link was

 

[Oncedeceived]

actually don't be put off by the claims - that is part of the point. Had a credible source made a claim of science that contradicted Creationists the present posters would not be making claims against the links being a credible supporting source. I have never seen that ANYWHERE on this forum. People even link to the claims of Talk origins. they may require additional sources but never have i read that a link from a credible source aobut the status of beliefs among scholars did not count. Shucks some of these same people even have relied on polls to determine what scientist think and a poll is a third party source affirming a position just as this link was

Well, maybe I did miss something. So you are discussing sources?

 

[SteveB28]

My 'favourite' misrepresentation by creationists is the manner in which they continue to follow the 'lead' of Henry Morris in claiming that the Second Law of Thermodynamics 'proves' evolution to be false.

 

[MikeEnders]

I never said your link didn't support anything. I just said it didn't really answer my question. Which it didn't.

You asked the time and up to 2014 it was still being claimed. As an atheists I am sure that causes you some embarrassment but seh la vie. If you were to ask me again I would give you the same answer because frankly given that you are still going on about this even though the link has since been proven by even more examples to be correct and entirely accurate shows me you deserved no other answer

This is neither here nor there, but that's a terrible metaphor.

Then you are ignorant of metaphor as well

No, you said 'up until 2014'. This could be 2013, 2012, 2011, et cetera...

Sure and it was.the silliness about your whining that you didn't get a specific date is that there is no specific date. There never is when a group says something is mythological. It usually is claimed right up to the time when it is proven to not be mythological.That you cant grasp something so basic isn't my fault it yours.

By the same token, if you ask someone when something occurred, it's generally understood that you're talking about as specific a time as possible

Unless there is no specific time or its completely meaningless to state a specified time like in this case. If I say atheist once believed this or that then it doesn't matter when it was unless it was not in modern times. If as late as 2014 they made the claim it is no more nor less wrong if it was 2013 or 2012 they made the claim. Fact is they made the claims all those years and have for some time again up until 2014 when it came out they were being walloped with discovery after discovery that showed your beloved atheist comrades wrong. You are only trying to make a big deal of it so as to occupy the thread and your mind with talking about dates rather than your beloved Atheist comrades being wrong regardless of dates

For instance, if i asked 'when did Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address' and you reply 'before 2014', that's an accurate answer, but an extremely unhelpful one, to the point where you shouldn't have even bothered.

The gettysbrug address is a singular event taking place at a particular time. When are you going to get it through your head that the opinions of various atheist scholars is not a singular event taking place at a particular moment or place in time (yes I know....never).

As for not bothering answering....trust me...ask anything again and I will make sure to give you a similar answer. Until you are a mod you won't be telling me what I should or should not bother with. I'll answer at my discretion and pleasure not yours.