King David's Palace Found

The James Ossuary was a forged artifact. A number of people in Israel have been indicted for this

Ok how about some proof.
1) That it is a palace
2) David's name?
3) Peer review of the findingsDr. Mazar seems to be a little controversial in Israeli archaelology. She is funded by groups that have a vested interest in establishing a stronger jewish claim to all of Jerusalem. The Ir David foundation exists to promote the moving of Jews into East jerusalem, which is traditionally arab neighborhoods. East Jerusalem is at the hear of the the Arab-Israeli conflict. SHe is also supported by Roger Hertog a Jewish American banker. I found this on beliefnet about this relationship..
"Her work has been sponsored by the Shalem Center, a neoconservative research organization in Jerusalem, and funded by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to help provide scientific support for the Bible as a reflection of Jewish history."No other archaeologists support her that this is a palace or in any way linked to King David.Give us evidence

Did I say anything about fraud?You asked what could be accepted as proof. I replied and added the part about her backers because I wanted to stress the need for peer review. That is what is different in science. In science people recognize and understand the effect of bias. That is why there is peer review

John Stuart Mill also said this Also, did you realize that he was an agnostic. He argued in his Three Essay on Religion that it was impossible for the universe to be governed by an omnipotent god.
Not really the type of guy you want to use to support your arguments Tal.

I agree it is off topic and I apologize. You try to justify and validate your posts by using questionable and/or irrelevant quotes. Since you bring those into the conversation, I feel that it is legitimate to point out that you are trying to use out of context, incorrect and spurious quotes as your signature to justify your position. The subject itself shouldn't be all that is open for discussion. Once someone uses information like you are that needs to be discussed also.This message has been edited by Theodoric, 08-18-2005 11:45 AM

actually that isn't how archaeology works. At times they are looking for something particular, but usually artifacts are found and then a dig is planned to determine exactly what is on the site. For example, I worked on the dig at Tel Gerisa in the early 80's. No one speculated at all at what would be found. All that was known was that it probably had some bronze age artifacts. I remember a the time some biblical archaeologists were hoping to able to use the site as evidence to verify cannaanite stories from the OT. That is not the correct way to do science.
Your argument clearly shows the difference between science and intelligent design. A true scientists doesnt start with the end and then try to find evidence. Rather they look at the evidence and then decide where the evidence points.
A lot of religiously motivated digs operate in the manner you describe.
By the way what historical evidence did she use to determine to dig there for David's palace.

I'll have to reread those passages. I dont remember anything that says where David's palace would be.But back to some original arguments in this thread.
There is nothing to show that this is David's place or for that matter nothing to show it is a palace at all.

Well considering that he argues that Moses was Akhnaten and Jesus was Tutankhamen, I would say this guy is pretty out there.