• Daxtron2@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    5 months ago

    Even if this image were real, and it was provable that it was the biblical Goliath, how in the fuck does that have anything to do with disproving evolution lol

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      118
      ·
      5 months ago

      Christians: "Well, you see, God was right because the Bible was proved true. That’s why it disproves your silly science.

      The Bible contains everything about life! If it’s not in there, it doesn’t exist!"

      People: “Show me where in the Bible it has kangaroos.”

      Christians: “We’re being oppressed!”

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 months ago

        I absolutely love it when the crazy Christians try to pull the “If it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t exist!” thing because at that point most everything they use on an every day basis must all be fictional things that don’t exist.

        Internet? Not in the Bible.

        Smart phones? Nope.

        Cars? Not a chance.

        Facebook? Haell No.

        TV? They wish.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              Just saying that is unlikely to persuade any religious crazies. Especially since NDGT came out and said he uses BC/AD because the Gregorian calendar was worked out by a priest so he’ll give them that nomenclature point. It’s just an arbitrary scale anyway.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            “We’ve taken over the governments of world powers and forced our Christ-centric numbering system to be standard, therefore we must have been right all along!”

  • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Fun fact: If (big if) Goliath really existed, he was probably suffering from acromegaly. It is characterized by a person not stopping to grow after puberty. The reason for that is an enlarged, tumorous pituary gland in the brain. So David hitting Goliath between the eyes might actually have ruptured the tumour, leading to internal bleeding in his brain and killing Goliath.

    So the whole biblical story might be based on something that actually happened and then probably got more and more dramaticised every time it was told.

    • nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It could also be based on any random tall dude dying from getting hit in the face by a flying rock, rare medical condition or not.

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      5 months ago

      Or maybe getting hit in the head by a rock launched from a sling is enough to make a person’s head basically explode.

      Seriously, a competent sling user can easily kill someone with one.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hitting someone square in the forehead with a rock, in the Bronze Age, was a quick way to kill them regardless of size. There’s a reason this image

      is both iconic and incredibly triggering to the IDF. You whip that thing around hard and fast enough, and you’re going to crack a head.

      So the whole biblical story might be based on something that actually happened

      I don’t find the story of a young, spry soldier with a bit of luck and some good aim thwacking a rival warlord with a rock implausible in the slightest. Its all the propaganda packed in around the story, what with David having some sort of euphoric epiphany and the rock being magicked by God to score the killing blow, that causes folks to roll their eyes in disbelief.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      5 months ago

      It probably isn’t even all that dramatacized,

      It is not hard at all to do serious damage with a genuinely made sling, there’s a reason people wielding those things operated as a military unit in ancient times, and they were pretty mean spirited folks too!

      They’d actually write insults and jokes on the stones like “CATCH ME!”, “HEADS UP!” “OUCH!” “BONK!”

      Basically the historical inaccuracies would be in terminology rather than exact action, and also in David not following the shot up with “THINK FAST CHUCKLENUTS!”

      • Graphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Imagine being a 6ft dude and some little bastard pulls out a gun and shoots you dead while the town cheers about that how courageous that little shit is.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

      The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.

          The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don’t place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.

          • optissima@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

              That is simply a lie.

              I said “the most likely answer” is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.

              • optissima@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

                Your basis for discounting it is “it wasn’t written down.” That’s all oral tradition. I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you’re rolling back on it, I’ll take it as such.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Yet again, “most likely answer” does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That’s simply a lie.

                  I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.

                  Stop lying.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      God created one very big dude one time specifically so that his Prophesized God-King could bean the giant in the head with a big rock. We know this to be true because of this definitely real and serious image of a big fossilized human skull.

      If evolution were real, we’d have an entire genetic lineage of giants running around. But we don’t, because no other very absolutely credibly real super-sized skulls have ever appeared in a picture before.

      So, checkmate Atheists.

    • dadarobot@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      If anything, i think a giant human would impy evolution. People don’t grt that big anymore, so like they evolved to a smaller size

  • Pat_Riot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    At 7 cubits tall his skull would still not be that big. They should have claimed it was a nephilim skull instead.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    5 months ago

    Also Goliath was canonically 9 ft 9 inches tall. That fake skull alone is at least 2 feet tall. The average proportion of head to body height in humans is a ratio of 1:7.5. So the owner of this skull would likely be at least 15 feet tall. Much larger than Goliath.

      • an_onanist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        First they would have to carry the head to the coast which is no easy task without a Toyota. You make it sound like crossing the Mediterranean is easy but storms are frequent and problematic. The ancient Israelites were not known for their seafaring prowess. In fact, they once got lost in the desert for 40 fucking years, so their ability to navigate by the stars is doubtful. Once they arrived in Italy, then, they would have had to cart that monstrosity hundreds of miles to Rome. And remember, this was before all road led there so, even more difficult. Finally, one should ask themselves why they would bother.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Mediterranean is very stormy. It’s a lot more difficult than you would think.

        There is a reason half of The Odyssey is Odysseus getting shipwrecked or blown off course by one storm or another.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      And how it was exposed to the elements, sitting on the forest floor, and yet survived…. Remarkably intact…

  • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I mean, Goliath was called a giant but wasn’t “my skull is the size of a full grown man’s torso” big. He is said to be about 9’-9’9". Which, if there was historical legitimacy to the story, could easily be within the range of a very tall person that had their height exaggerated over time.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Agreed. Units are hard and for most of history there wasn’t a wiki where you could look up the conversion between cubits, greek feet, roman feet, italian feet, french feet, and english feet to maybe get to some idea of how tall the “huge guy” was.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, also, imagine in the bronze age, a shaq sized dude was found and trained to be an elite warrior. I could totally see the men of that era, who encountered him in battle, telling tall tails of a 9 foot giant they had to fight.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean yeah Shaq would wreck shit back then, humans were generally much shorter in the past. Goliath would have seemed a giant if he were 6’3”

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Goliath died outside of Jerusalem, too, not Rome. And his people were Greek, not Roman, so it’s not like his remains would be taken back to Rome. And if he really was such a champion, his remains wouldn’t be left in a random forest with no marker or ruins about.

    EDIT: No time for the old “Philistines aren’t Greeks,” love, I’ve just come to read the meter.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s on a random Facebook page and it aligns with what I feel should be true, it must be true.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Uh, no, the side was smashed in.

    edit: all talking about between the eyes, but i learned from that part in religion lessons that the temple is a weak point on our skull.
    Difference between european and american version?

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      It just looks like forced perspective. The skull could easily be a normal skull and the guy like 10 feet away from it.