If evolution is real, then where is it?

[crjmurray]

Moses is a person whereas Leprechauns are not known entities. Come on, I expected more from you.

Fine replace Moses with Hercules if it makes you feel better, I don't care.

I just want to see some evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just want to see some evidence.

Evidence appeals to the mind and flesh, doesn't it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.

Correct. It is fool's errand to prove a negative, so it is usually understood that the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Until evidence is given, then Moses sits with the rest of the unevidenced entities like Bigfoot and Leprechauns. If you do not feel compelled to believe in Leprechauns simply because no one has disproven them, then you can join the Atheists in having a sensible position.

 

[Oafman]

I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.

Lengthy archeological studies by the Israelis have shown that the OT story is false.

Ze’ev Herzog, from the University of Tel Aviv said:

the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.

Israel Finkelstein, who has been described as 'the father of biblical archeology':

Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan

On the Exodus story, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem

So, the central story in the OT is just that; a story.

There may well have been, at that time, some guy called Moses alive in the area. But the Moses we think of, the baby in a basket, leading the Israelites towards the promised land, chatting with bushes, being given the commandments etc, almost certainly did not exist. Given that the story was made up centuries later, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the central characters were too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. It is fool's errand to prove a negative, so it is usually understood that the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Until evidence is given, then Moses sits with the rest of the unevidenced entities like Bigfoot and Leprechauns. If you do not feel compelled to believe in Leprechauns simply because no one has disproven them, then you can join the Atheists in having a sensible position.

Your equating a person to Bigfoot and Leprechauns says more about your argument that you wish to show.

You know that at one time it was claimed that King David didn't exist either until archeologists discovered artifacts that proved he existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your equating a person to Bigfoot and Leprechauns says more about your argument that you wish to show.

I am equating an unevidenced belief to another unevidenced belief.

You know that at one time it was claimed that King David didn't exist either until archeologists discovered artifacts that proved he existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Last I heard, that was really, really weak evidence and it did nothing to support the claims made in the Bible. It's like finding a headstone with the name Bill Hickock, and using that headstone as proof that people really used to lasso tornadoes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am equating an unevidenced belief to another unevidenced belief.



Last I heard, that was really, really weak evidence and it did nothing to support the claims made in the Bible. It's like finding a headstone with the name Bill Hickock, and using that headstone as proof that people really used to lasso tornadoes.

I don't find this surprising to see that you will take whatever evidence there is and deny it. You demand and demand evidence and then if evidence is shown you deny it. It is always the same with you.

There was one stone that in 1806 I believe was found and it had on it an inscription, House of David. Now there has been several other discoveries as well that have supported the existence of David. Another artifact with an inscription from an enemy:

It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David.

The newest find:

Discovery of official clay seals support existence of biblical kings David and Solomon, archaeologists say -- ScienceDaily

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't find this surprising to see that you will take whatever evidence there is and deny it. You demand and demand evidence and then if evidence is shown you deny it. It is always the same with you.

There was one stone that in 1806 I believe was found and it had on it an inscription, House of David. Now there has been several other discoveries as well that have supported the existence of David. Another artifact with an inscription from an enemy:

It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David.

The newest find:

Discovery of official clay seals support existence of biblical kings David and Solomon, archaeologists say -- ScienceDaily

Again, this is not evidence for the claims that the Bible makes about David. Bill Hickok was definitely a real person. This doesn't make the tall tales told about Bill Hickok true. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your post won't transfer:

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.
​

Lengthy archeological studies by the Israelis have shown that the OT story is false.

Ze’ev Herzog, from the University of Tel Aviv said:

the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
​

Israel Finkelstein, who has been described as 'the father of biblical archeology':

Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan
​

On the Exodus story, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem
​

So, the central story in the OT is just that; a story.

There may well have been, at that time, some guy called Moses alive in the area. But the Moses we think of, the baby in a basket, leading the Israelites towards the promised land, chatting with bushes, being given the commandments etc, almost certainly did not exist. Given that the story was made up centuries later, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the central characters were too.

Please cite the evidence they use to determine this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, this is not evidence for the claims that the Bible makes about David. Bill Hickok was definitely a real person. This doesn't make the tall tales told about Bill Hickok true. Do you understand the difference?

Shifting the goalposts once again. Nothing was said about the actions or events that were provided in the Bible but whether or not they even existed.

 

[Oafman]

Your post won't transfer:

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.
​

Please cite the evidence they use to determine this.

I know next to nothing about archeology, so I was taking the experts' word for it.

But you'll be relieved to hear that I had a few minutes free to do some reading, and I found that way more of the OT than I previously realised has been comprehensively refuted. Jericho's walls never tumbled in OT times (150 years of digging the site, going back 11000 years, the last time the city suffered significant damage was centuries before Joshua would have lived). In fact, many of the Canaanite cities Joshua was supposed to have conquered had been permanently destroyed centuries before he was supposed to have existed (14th BCE). The cities of Arad and Ai had not existed for over 1000 years by that time! No large number of Israelites ever visited Sinai (absolutely no archeological evidence ever found, no Egyptian accounts). One very interesting thing I learned was that the oldest account of the OT story is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls written in around 200 BCE, a whole millennium after the events in the story.

When modern Israel was formed archeologists poured into the region, determined to prove the historicity of the OT. They poured into Sinai when Israel captured it in 67. But much of what they've found in the decades since disproves key elements the story. This was a story passed down over many generations, mistold, embellished and exaggerated, not written down for centuries. It is not an account of history, it is a story.

A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives
Early Israel in Canaan; A Survey of Recent Evidence and Interpretations
A Low Chronology Update; Archaeology, history and bible
William Dever on the Exodus and the Bible

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know very little about this subject. I had heard about Osiris' resurrection before somewhere, so after a quick check on Wikipedia to ensure I had not imagined it, I posted what I knew. The only other thing I remember is that Osiris was killed, and subsequently resurrected, twice. Which I think is why his body was chopped up and spread around Egypt the second time - to try to prevent a repeat of the first.

So I'm afraid I can't direct you to anything which provides more detail, though I'm sure there is plenty of stuff out there.

As a matter of principle the idea that there are similarities between the Jesus story and the stories in other myths isn't something that bothers me. But I've also found it's a good idea to be a stickler for trying to have the facts right. I've been discussing matters of religion in discussion forums for about fifteen years and one of the things I notice consistently is that there is just a lot of misinformation about all sorts of things on the internet. Shocking I'm sure.

For example I've seen wild conspiracy theories about the Jesuits with claimed sources which, when looked at directly, don't say anything remotely like what the ones making the claim want it to say.

Or there's the repeated statements like that Constantine I created the Roman Catholic Church and was the first Pope (problem there, there was a bishop in Rome during Constantine's reign, Sylvester). Or that Constantine selected which books would go into the Bible--problem, no information is available that would even remotely indicate such a thing, and we have plenty of pre-Constantinian sources of what sorts of books Christians were reading in their churches long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye. Or, alternatively, that the Council of Nicea decided on which books would be in the Bible--problem there too, since none of the histories or documents which report on or came out of Nicea mention that the Biblical Canon was even so much as a minor thought at the council, the council had other matters to attend to.

Then there's the copycat stuff. For example the claim that Jesus' story was ripped in total from Mithras' story. Such as that Mithras was born of a virgin and had twelve disciples. Again, a problem, Mithras wasn't said to have been born of a virgin, but from solid rock as a fully formed adult (you can even look up ancient Mithraic art t hat shows the birth of MIthras from solid rock). Also it turns out that the twelve disciples thing was a bit of creative interpretation, there is another piece of ancient Mithraic art that shows Mithras as a solar deity surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac:

There's also a claim that Mithras was said to be a cosmic bull and offered his blood which gave eternal life; though of course the actual story is that Mithras fought and slew a cosmic bull--and which is why followers of the Mithras Cult in Rome offered bulls as ritual sacrifice.

Given these sorts of things I've found it helpful to at least ask where people get their information--because I often find that a lot of time people will just repeat what they've heard. I mean we're all guilty of this, especially when we hear something and it affirms our confirmation bias and so we just kind of accept it uncritically. So I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that we all should filter our information more critically.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JacksBratt]

I believe God created the Cell, and this cell evolved to be the most grandiose creation of God. and God assisted and managed that evolution.
You just have to be blind, fanatical, or completely close minded not to accept the universe is really old, the planet is also old and the animals have evolved in millions of years. the evidence is just overwhelming. You have the age of the light to travel from galaxies to earth measured in millions of light years. you have crystals and stalagmites stalactites, that have grow drop by drop in millions of years. plate tectonics, movements of continents. etc etc.

So, how do you wrap you head around the fact that God formed Adam with His hands and breathed life into his nostrils, and at that point Adam became a living soul? Also, that there was no women until God made Eve with Adam's rib?

Why is it so hard to believe or accept that a God that is so powerful that He can create the universe, created it just as He said He did, and Christ reiterated it, and that He created it in six literal days?

I understand the atheists here have an answer but this is for ivanc0 with their "Christian" icon

 

[SkyWriting]

oh man.
from the link:
Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 81% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper” [35].

why would these educated scientists do such a thing if they had such uncompromising faith in the peer review process?

Coming right from school, they've learned that cutting corners can get
you a better grade, as long as you don't get caught cheating.

 

[SkyWriting]

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As a matter of principle the idea that there are similarities between the Jesus story and the stories in other myths isn't something that bothers me. But I've also found it's a good idea to be a stickler for trying to have the facts right. I've been discussing matters of religion in discussion forums for about fifteen years and one of the things I notice consistently is that there is just a lot of misinformation about all sorts of things on the internet. Shocking I'm sure.

For example I've seen wild conspiracy theories about the Jesuits with claimed sources which, when looked at directly, don't say anything remotely like what the ones making the claim want it to say.

Or there's the repeated statements like that Constantine I created the Roman Catholic Church and was the first Pope (problem there, there was a bishop in Rome during Constantine's reign, Sylvester). Or that Constantine selected which books would go into the Bible--problem, no information is available that would even remotely indicate such a thing, and we have plenty of pre-Constantinian sources of what sorts of books Christians were reading in their churches long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye. Or, alternatively, that the Council of Nicea decided on which books would be in the Bible--problem there too, since none of the histories or documents which report on or came out of Nicea mention that the Biblical Canon was even so much as a minor thought at the council, the council had other matters to attend to.

Then there's the copycat stuff. For example the claim that Jesus' story was ripped in total from Mithras' story. Such as that Mithras was born of a virgin and had twelve disciples. Again, a problem, Mithras wasn't said to have been born of a virgin, but from solid rock as a fully formed adult (you can even look up ancient Mithraic art t hat shows the birth of MIthras from solid rock). Also it turns out that the twelve disciples thing was a bit of creative interpretation, there is another piece of ancient Mithraic art that shows Mithras as a solar deity surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac:

There's also a claim that Mithras was said to be a cosmic bull and offered his blood which gave eternal life; though of course the actual story is that Mithras fought and slew a cosmic bull--and which is why followers of the Mithras Cult in Rome offered bulls as ritual sacrifice.

Given these sorts of things I've found it helpful to at least ask where people get their information--because I often find that a lot of time people will just repeat what they've heard. I mean we're all guilty of this, especially when we hear something and it affirms our confirmation bias and so we just kind of accept it uncritically. So I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that we all should filter our information more critically.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree completely. I've been on the forums watching the same misinformation circulate time and time again for years and years.

 

[bhsmte]

As a matter of principle the idea that there are similarities between the Jesus story and the stories in other myths isn't something that bothers me. But I've also found it's a good idea to be a stickler for trying to have the facts right. I've been discussing matters of religion in discussion forums for about fifteen years and one of the things I notice consistently is that there is just a lot of misinformation about all sorts of things on the internet. Shocking I'm sure.

For example I've seen wild conspiracy theories about the Jesuits with claimed sources which, when looked at directly, don't say anything remotely like what the ones making the claim want it to say.

Or there's the repeated statements like that Constantine I created the Roman Catholic Church and was the first Pope (problem there, there was a bishop in Rome during Constantine's reign, Sylvester). Or that Constantine selected which books would go into the Bible--problem, no information is available that would even remotely indicate such a thing, and we have plenty of pre-Constantinian sources of what sorts of books Christians were reading in their churches long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye. Or, alternatively, that the Council of Nicea decided on which books would be in the Bible--problem there too, since none of the histories or documents which report on or came out of Nicea mention that the Biblical Canon was even so much as a minor thought at the council, the council had other matters to attend to.

Then there's the copycat stuff. For example the claim that Jesus' story was ripped in total from Mithras' story. Such as that Mithras was born of a virgin and had twelve disciples. Again, a problem, Mithras wasn't said to have been born of a virgin, but from solid rock as a fully formed adult (you can even look up ancient Mithraic art t hat shows the birth of MIthras from solid rock). Also it turns out that the twelve disciples thing was a bit of creative interpretation, there is another piece of ancient Mithraic art that shows Mithras as a solar deity surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac:

There's also a claim that Mithras was said to be a cosmic bull and offered his blood which gave eternal life; though of course the actual story is that Mithras fought and slew a cosmic bull--and which is why followers of the Mithras Cult in Rome offered bulls as ritual sacrifice.

Given these sorts of things I've found it helpful to at least ask where people get their information--because I often find that a lot of time people will just repeat what they've heard. I mean we're all guilty of this, especially when we hear something and it affirms our confirmation bias and so we just kind of accept it uncritically. So I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that we all should filter our information more critically.

-CryptoLutheran

Well stated.

Many christians, simply have not delved into an objective historical review of scripture.

Why? Iit takes a lot of effort. And some of what they discover, are likely to shake some of their tightly held beliefs about the historicity of scripture.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, this is not evidence for the claims that the Bible makes about David. Bill Hickok was definitely a real person. This doesn't make the tall tales told about Bill Hickok true. Do you understand the difference?

The difference is the claim. The claim was that Moses didn't exist and was a myth and the reasoning behind that claim supposedly (made by others rather than the original poster) was there was no evidence for his existence and I said that at one time David was considered a myth and didn't exist either and now there is evidence he did exist and did have the House of David as the Bible states.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wonder why He documented that He did it in six days?

Maybe it wasn't Him doing the documenting?