PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design Thread



Dolphan7
02-29-2008, 03:35 AM
DNA Double Helix - 9 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlP8SmIqXjk

Celtkin
02-29-2008, 11:15 AM
I gave you your own thread, bro.

Pagan
02-29-2008, 11:37 AM
I was wondering when you were gunna do that. :lol:

Celtkin
02-29-2008, 11:43 AM
I was wondering when you were gunna do that. :lol:

I wanted to keep science lectures in a different thread than the religious lectures.

Dolphan7
02-29-2008, 11:45 AM
I gave you your own thread, bro.Why did you do that?

Celtkin
02-29-2008, 11:48 AM
Why did you do that?

I thought it was a better choice than deleting the post as off-topic. I can delete this thread if you'd prefer. I was trying to give you a voice for your ideas.

Dolphan7
03-02-2008, 12:08 AM
I thought it was a better choice than deleting the post as off-topic. I can delete this thread if you'd prefer. I was trying to give you a voice for your ideas.Off Topic? Explain?

Celtkin
03-02-2008, 12:44 AM
Off Topic? Explain?

Off topic=Not science.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a religious compromise to the theory of evolution.

Dolphan7
03-02-2008, 01:07 PM
Off topic=Not science.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a religious compromise to the theory of evolution.It is an alternate view of our origins that include the design of all life on earth and all matter in the universe, and yes this points to a designer. It is a very valid viewpoint and uses very good science to do so and should be included in any science thread/forum - even if the moderator's opinion of the subject is different.

Blackocrates
04-11-2008, 02:11 AM
It is an alternate view of our origins that include the design of all life on earth and all matter in the universe, and yes this points to a designer. It is a very valid viewpoint and uses very good science to do so and should be included in any science thread/forum - even if the moderator's opinion of the subject is different.

It's impossible to use science to show there is a God. Intelligent design is not close to a science. You can't see God, you can't touch God, you can't hear God, you can't taste God, and you can't smell God. Science does not measure outside of the five senses.

poornate
04-11-2008, 09:01 AM
.... the point you are missing is that it is not impossible for science to find some things inexplainable... that is where you can wedge God into any scientific debate... It is all a school of thought... It comes down to whether you believe all things are explainable through the limited capacities of science, or that some things could have an inexplainable origin. God is as viable an argument as any other argument because there is no answer currently available.

Blackocrates
04-11-2008, 11:03 AM
.... the point you are missing is that it is not impossible for science to find some things inexplainable... that is where you can wedge God into any scientific debate... It is all a school of thought... It comes down to whether you believe all things are explainable through the limited capacities of science, or that some things could have an inexplainable origin. God is as viable an argument as any other argument because there is no answer currently available.

The point isn't the result of an experiment. The point is whether scientific methods can be used to test for the existence of intelligent design and it can't.

poornate
04-11-2008, 11:29 AM
I don't want to imply that I believe in intelligent design. I don't. I just think that it is as valid as any other theory for the inexplainable... To me achieving higher level and critical thinking skills are the apex of scientific achievement, so I believe that it CAN have a valid place in debate about unproven or currently unprovable phenomenon... Without conjecture science would have never made any leaps forward.... that is not the case... there has to be a theory before someone can find a way to test it... perhaps the fact that there is no test is proof enough in an outside force having a hand in natural order...

Dolphan7
04-11-2008, 03:12 PM
The point isn't the result of an experiment. The point is whether scientific methods can be used to test for the existence of intelligent design and it can't.Science can and is used in looking at evidence of a designer. Just like science is supposedly used to show evidence of life starting from non-life, or simple organisms mutating into more complex organisms.

You are right though that science can't prove God.

Science also can't prove evolution either, so there is always that.

Blackocrates
04-11-2008, 05:48 PM
Science can and is used in looking at evidence of a designer. Just like science is supposedly used to show evidence of life starting from non-life, or simple organisms mutating into more complex organisms.

You are right though that science can't prove God.

Science also can't prove evolution either, so there is always that.

Science has proven evolution, for example chemical evolution of origin of life. You even said yourself micro-evolution has been proven. Speciation, mutation, natural selection, etc.

Pagan
04-11-2008, 09:46 PM
You are right though that science can't prove God.

Science also can't prove evolution either, so there is always that.
And you've called evolution a "lie".

Since you just said science can't prove either one...well.... ;)

Dolphan7
04-11-2008, 10:53 PM
Science has proven evolution, for example chemical evolution of origin of life. You even said yourself micro-evolution has been proven. Speciation, mutation, natural selection, etc.I know that you have been "told" that science has proven evolution. The reality is though....it hasn't.

Science has no clue how non-life became life.

Miller - Uray was a failure more than a success. Science has moved away from that experiment as it really only proved how hard it is to create life from non-life in a controlled and designed laboratory. No way it could have ever happened in nature.

Micro-evolution is not evolution, although evolutionists would seek to trick people into thinking that.

Micro-evolution can only maintain adaptation within species, or kinds if you are a creationist. It cannot explain, nor has it been proven that you can create a new organism through micro-evolution. You need new information, new DNA, new genetic material in order to change the organism into another organism.

A fruit fly will always be a fruitfly, not a mosquito, or a moth.

Speciation, mutation, natural selection all fail to explain macro-evolution.

Dolphan7
04-11-2008, 10:55 PM
And you've called evolution a "lie".

Since you just said science can't prove either one...well.... ;)Yeah you got me there! :d-day:

Blackocrates
04-12-2008, 11:43 PM
I know that you have been "told" that science has proven evolution. The reality is though....it hasn't.

Science has no clue how non-life became life.

Miller - Uray was a failure more than a success. Science has moved away from that experiment as it really only proved how hard it is to create life from non-life in a controlled and designed laboratory. No way it could have ever happened in nature.

Micro-evolution is not evolution, although evolutionists would seek to trick people into thinking that.

Micro-evolution can only maintain adaptation within species, or kinds if you are a creationist. It cannot explain, nor has it been proven that you can create a new organism through micro-evolution. You need new information, new DNA, new genetic material in order to change the organism into another organism.

A fruit fly will always be a fruitfly, not a mosquito, or a moth.

Speciation, mutation, natural selection all fail to explain macro-evolution.

You say micro-evolution isn't evolution and quickly dismiss it, just by saying it isn't evolution. Why, because it pokes a huge hole in denying evolution?

Dolphan7
04-14-2008, 12:42 PM
You say micro-evolution isn't evolution and quickly dismiss it, just by saying it isn't evolution. Why, because it pokes a huge hole in denying evolution?No not at all.

Adaptation within species has no argument among creationists or evolutionists. We can see it happen and understand it. But it does not explain species jump, which macro-evolution demands.

Micro-evolution isn't evolution, it is adaptation withing species. This is what Darwin saw in his finches. Gene reshuffling, appearance of latent characteristics of an already existing gene.....this is adaptation. Peppered moth.

No amount of micro-evolution will ever jump species, no matter how much time goes by, without a mechanism to do so. And there is no mechanism that explains how new DNA instructions can be created within an organism in a natural environment.

So when evolutionists say that micro-evolution is evolution, they can say that all they want, but they can't prove it.

Don't believe the hype. Ask questions.

slickman12345
04-14-2008, 03:23 PM
I've heard the points some have made on the Big Bang theory and Evolution, but my question is how do they explain how that matter was compressed there in the 1st place before it exploded?

I feel that uncertainty of evidence is just as valid as questioning intelligent design.

Joker2thief
04-15-2008, 10:16 AM
"Don't believe the hype. Ask questions."
If only :lol:

umpalu
06-18-2008, 03:39 AM
I've heard the points some have made on the Big Bang theory and Evolution, but my question is how do they explain how that matter was compressed there in the 1st place before it exploded?

I feel that uncertainty of evidence is just as valid as questioning intelligent design.

this is the most intelligent post in this thread so far. It is my only belief that there might be a god since I have a scientific mindset. It all came from somewhere, but where. However this is a different question posed than saying it was all here and nothing evolved. Yeah something may have created it all so there might be something "out there" that is a creator. However, ignoring evolution that keeps slowly being developed more and more as more and more fossils are found and links are connected proved no validity to logic. All that says is that every species on the earth was here from the beginning. So where are the dinosaurs in the bible? At what point are their no more species on the planet because they have all died out due to the set starting amount of species in the beginning? There can be a creator without having intelligent design.

HurriPhin
06-18-2008, 04:50 AM
Science has proven evolution, for example chemical evolution of origin of life. You even said yourself micro-evolution has been proven. Speciation, mutation, natural selection, etc.

Science has proven evolution, or rather micro-evolution. Science has not proven chemical evolution of origin of life. Chemical evolution of origin of life was developed in the 1950's as a result of Stanley L. Miller. The Miller "Spark and Soup" experiments are the closest man has ever come to creating life from inorganic matter "naturally by random chance" in the laboratory. However, there are three significant problems with Miller's experiments.

First, Miller started with the wrong materials. Miller assumed a reducing atmosphere: Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), and Hydrogen. He purposefully excluded Oxygen, because as a biochemist, Miller knew that Oxygen would destroy any amino acids (the building blocks of life) that might be produced. Oxygen precludes any naturalistic evolutionary origin of life. Yet, as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust, we find oxidized rock, indicating the Earth has always had an oxygen-rich atmosphere. However, just suppose there was an Oxygen-free reducing atmosphere. Now we have a chicken and the egg problem. Without Oxygen there is no Ozone (O3). Without Ozone there is nothing shielding the Earth from the Sun's Ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The problem is Ammonia is decomposed by UV -- Ammonia can't exist apart from Ozone. To further cast doubt on the "reducing atmosphere" hypothesis, we should find Methane in ancient sedimentary clays and we don't. The geology appears clear: Earth never had a reducing atmosphere.

Second, Miller used the wrong conditions. The experiment was supposed to demonstrate how life could evolve from inorganic matter naturally by random chance. Miller used an electric spark to simulate lightning flashing upon the ancient earth. The spark was necessary to combine the gas molecules to produce the desired amino acid building blocks. The problem is the same spark that puts the amino acids together tears them apart. Actually, it is much better at destroying them than creating them. As a biochemist Miller knew this, so he circulated the gases and trapped out the amino acids using a well-known biochemist trick. Miller was supposed to recreate the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter naturally by random chance, but he acted as an engineer, using biochemical know-how. Thus, the Miller experiment was not random at all -- wrong conditions.

Third, Miller got the wrong results. The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them. This is how modern pesticides kill their prey. In fact, had he drunk the solution his experiment produced, it is a virtual certainty that Stanley Miller would have died. Miller did not create life -- he created poison -- wrong results.

Even if scientists were to discover a method by which amino acid building blocks could be produced by random chemical processes, according to secular mathematicians life itself could not evolve randomly from inorganic matter. In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10^40,000. When you consider that the chances of winning a state lottery every week of your life from the age 18 to age 99 is about one in 4.6 x 10^29,120, the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 10^50 is in the realm of metaphysics - i.e. a miracle.

Intelligent design, supernatural creator, God, science cannot explain these for a reason, for this requires faith.

I know it's a long winded post, but I felt a debate of this nature (pun intended) requires more intellectualism than the typical football smack that I usually post.

Dolphan7
06-18-2008, 12:38 PM
Has anyone seen the latest History Channel show about Origin of Life. It just aired this week. They clearly debunk Miller's experiment. And basically throw up their hands and say, we don't know how life began, it is unlikely, improbable......but it happened!

Now that takes great faith to say.

Dolphan7
06-18-2008, 12:48 PM
this is the most intelligent post in this thread so far. It is my only belief that there might be a god since I have a scientific mindset. It all came from somewhere, but where. However this is a different question posed than saying it was all here and nothing evolved. Yeah something may have created it all so there might be something "out there" that is a creator. However, ignoring evolution that keeps slowly being developed more and more as more and more fossils are found and links are connected proved no validity to logic. All that says is that every species on the earth was here from the beginning. So where are the dinosaurs in the bible? At what point are their no more species on the planet because they have all died out due to the set starting amount of species in the beginning? There can be a creator without having intelligent design.
There are a couple of references to dinosuars in the Bible. Read Job 40:15-24 and Job 41:1-34


JOB 40:15
"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox. JOB 40:16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins
And his power in the muscles of his belly. JOB 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together. JOB 40:18 "His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron. JOB 40:19
"He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his maker bring near his sword. JOB 40:20 "Surely the mountains bring him food,
And all the beasts of the field play there. JOB 40:21 "Under the lotus plants he lies down,
In the covert of the reeds and the marsh. JOB 40:22 "The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him. JOB 40:23 "If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth. JOB 40:24 "Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?




JOB 41:1 " Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook?
Or press down his tongue with a cord? JOB 41:2 "Can you put a rope in his nose
Or pierce his jaw with a hook? JOB 41:3 "Will he make many supplications to you,
Or will he speak to you soft words? JOB 41:4 "Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him for a servant forever? JOB 41:5 "Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you bind him for your maidens? JOB 41:6 "Will the traders bargain over him?
Will they divide him among the merchants? JOB 41:7 "Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears? JOB 41:8 "Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle; you will not do it again! JOB 41:9 " Behold, your expectation is false;
Will you be laid low even at the sight of him? JOB 41:10 "No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him;
Who then is he that can stand before Me? JOB 41:11 "Who has given to Me that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine. JOB 41:12
"I will not keep silence concerning his limbs,
Or his mighty strength, or his orderly frame. JOB 41:13 "Who can strip off his outer armor?
Who can come within his double mail? JOB 41:14 "Who can open the doors of his face?
Around his teeth there is terror. JOB 41:15 "His strong scales are his pride,
Shut up as with a tight seal. JOB 41:16 "One is so near to another
That no air can come between them. JOB 41:17 "They are joined one to another;
They clasp each other and cannot be separated. JOB 41:18 "His sneezes flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. JOB 41:19 "Out of his mouth go burning torches;
Sparks of fire leap forth. JOB 41:20 "Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. JOB 41:21 "His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes forth from his mouth.
JOB 41:22 "In his neck lodges strength,
And dismay leaps before him.
JOB 41:23 "The folds of his flesh are joined together,
Firm on him and immovable.
JOB 41:24 "His heart is as hard as a stone,
Even as hard as a lower millstone.
JOB 41:25 "When he raises himself up, the mighty fear;
Because of the crashing they are bewildered.
JOB 41:26 "The sword that reaches him cannot avail,
Nor the spear, the dart or the javelin.
JOB 41:27 "He regards iron as straw,
Bronze as rotten wood.
JOB 41:28 "The arrow cannot make him flee;
Slingstones are turned into stubble for him.
JOB 41:29 "Clubs are regarded as stubble;
He laughs at the rattling of the javelin.
JOB 41:30 "His underparts are like sharp potsherds;
He spreads out like a threshing sledge on the mire.
JOB 41:31 "He makes the depths boil like a pot;
He makes the sea like a jar of ointment.
JOB 41:32 "Behind him he makes a wake to shine;
One would think the deep to be gray-haired.
JOB 41:33 " Nothing on earth is like him,
One made without fear.
JOB 41:34 " He looks on everything that is high;
He is king over all the sons of pride."

HurriPhin
06-19-2008, 01:04 AM
Has anyone seen the latest History Channel show about Origin of Life. It just aired this week. They clearly debunk Miller's experiment. And basically throw up their hands and say, we don't know how life began, it is unlikely, improbable......but it happened!

Now that takes great faith to say.

Amen

ih8brady
06-19-2008, 01:37 AM
Has anyone seen the latest History Channel show about Origin of Life. It just aired this week. They clearly debunk Miller's experiment. And basically throw up their hands and say, we don't know how life began, it is unlikely, improbable......but it happened!

Now that takes great faith to say.


But believing the camp-fire tales from a Bronze Age people who didn't know what a germ or an atom or electricity was....purely rational and reasoned. But suddenly RNA World or agnosticism (aka honesty) is based on faith, which I am glad to see you also see as a false virtue unless of course you are being hypocritical.

HurriPhin
06-19-2008, 01:56 AM
But believing the camp-fire tales from a Bronze Age people who didn't know what a germ or an atom or electricity was....purely rational and reasoned. But suddenly RNA World or agnosticism (aka honesty) is based on faith, which I am glad to see you also see as a false virtue unless of course you are being hypocritical.

Scientifically speaking, it's quite interesting that those "bronze age" people did not know any more about the origin of life than we do now..

ih8brady
06-19-2008, 03:10 AM
Scientifically speaking, it's quite interesting that those "bronze age" people did not know any more about the origin of life than we do now..


You're right. They did not know anything about the origin of life. They did not know about heliocentricism, magic not existing, black holes, gravity, evolution, chemistry, etcetera, etcetera. Their science (or natural philosophy) was quite weak.

HurriPhin
06-19-2008, 05:26 AM
You're right. They did not know anything about the origin of life. They did not know about heliocentricism, magic not existing, black holes, gravity, evolution, chemistry, etcetera, etcetera. Their science (or natural philosophy) was quite weak.

I think you missed my point. I meant that our advanced scientific research has not proven anything more than what they already knew back then. Simply put, God created life.

Dolphan7
06-19-2008, 01:17 PM
But believing the camp-fire tales from a Bronze Age people who didn't know what a germ or an atom or electricity was....purely rational and reasoned. But suddenly RNA World or agnosticism (aka honesty) is based on faith, which I am glad to see you also see as a false virtue unless of course you are being hypocritical.Believing in a Creator who made the universe and the earth and all the plants and animals is actually the logical and intelligent viewpoint.

Keep believing that the big bang happened from non-matter into matter naturally all by itself, with absolutely no evidence to prove that, and tell me how rational that belief is.

Keep believing that life happened from non-life on this planet, and science still has no clue how that could happen, yet they believe that it did, and tell me how realistic that belief is.

I am not being hypocritical, but I am pointing out the hypocracy of science, that claims the have all this evidence and believe that evolution and big bang happened naturally, yet have no evidence to prove that, and they call that science, not belief. I just think it is funny.

Hey brother, you have to believe is something. You beleive what you want, keep denying the existance of God, even though there are many who have tried to make you aware that there really is a God. The choice is up to you, will you make the intellectual right choice.

ih8brady
06-19-2008, 03:29 PM
Believing in a Creator who made the universe and the earth and all the plants and animals is actually the logical and intelligent viewpoint.

Keep believing that the big bang happened from non-matter into matter naturally all by itself, with absolutely no evidence to prove that, and tell me how rational that belief is.

Keep believing that life happened from non-life on this planet, and science still has no clue how that could happen, yet they believe that it did, and tell me how realistic that belief is.

I am not being hypocritical, but I am pointing out the hypocracy of science, that claims the have all this evidence and believe that evolution and big bang happened naturally, yet have no evidence to prove that, and they call that science, not belief. I just think it is funny.

Hey brother, you have to believe is something. You beleive what you want, keep denying the existance of God, even though there are many who have tried to make you aware that there really is a God. The choice is up to you, will you make the intellectual right choice.

It is hypocritical to be a person of faith, but then recant it as virtuous when you claim others use it. If it takes faith not to believe that an invisible man behind everything, then you should celebrate that. If not, then you are conceding the fallacy of faith.

As far as God goes, you can find my non-belief in the same way you are a non-believer in astrology, magic, Apollo, Thor, the great Juju in the sky, etcetera. That's reason. Reason is demanding evidence for claims, and that great claims demand great evidence.

Dolphan7
06-19-2008, 03:44 PM
It is hypocritical to be a person of faith, but then recant it as virtuous when you claim others use it. If it takes faith not to believe that an invisible man behind everything, then you should celebrate that. If not, then you are conceding the fallacy of faith.

As far as God goes, you can find my non-belief in the same way you are a non-believer in astrology, magic, Apollo, Thor, the great Juju in the sky, etcetera. That's reason. Reason is demanding evidence for claims, and that great claims demand great evidence.If you want evidence of a Creator, simply look in the mirror. How did you get here? How does your body, which is the most complex of all living creatures on the planet, function? Ever wonder about that? Look at all the complexity in the world.

When we look at all creation, we don't sit there and wonder - wow, all this came from nothing. Heck no - intellect says that we look at it and ask where is the creator, the designer.

When we look at a huge highrise office building standing 50 stories high, do we sit there and wonder - wow, all this from nothing. Heck no we marvel at the design and know that there is a designer behind the scenes!

The world is the same way. To look at it and attempt to try to explain it away naturally with no hard evidence to prove it, requires an astonishing amount of faith. I envy you becasue of that great amount of faith you have!

Like I said, we all have to believe in something! Anything we believe requires a certain amount of faith. Yours demands evidence, for which there is none. Mine does not demand evidence, but happily provides it nonetheless.

Jesus once said to Thomas,

JN 20:29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

ih8brady
06-19-2008, 03:49 PM
If you want evidence of a Creator, simply look in the mirror. How did you get here? How does your body, which is the most complex of all living creatures on the planet, function? Ever wonder about that? Look at all the complexity in the world.

When we look at all creation, we don't sit there and wonder - wow, all this came from nothing. Heck no - intellect says that we look at it and ask where is the creator, the designer.

When we look at a huge highrise office building standing 50 stories high, do we sit there and wonder - wow, all this from nothing. Heck no we marvel at the design and know that there is a designer behind the scenes!

The world is the same way. To look at it and attempt to try to explain it away naturally with no hard evidence to prove it, requires an astonishing amount of faith. I envy you becasue of that great amount of faith you have!

Like I said, we all have to believe in something! Anything we believe requires a certain amount of faith. Yours demands evidence, for which there is none. Mine does not demand evidence, but happily provides it nonetheless.

Jesus once said to Thomas,

JN 20:29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."


You're applying unnatural connotations to nature. (And what makes the human body the most complex living creature?)

How do you know that you weren't created by Zeus?

Is this the same Demigod that slaughtered, ethnic cleansed and massacred those who chose not to follow him?

Dolphan7
06-19-2008, 04:59 PM
You're applying unnatural connotations to nature. (And what makes the human body the most complex living creature?)

How do you know that you weren't created by Zeus?

Is this the same Demigod that slaughtered, ethnic cleansed and massacred those who chose not to follow him?What you are comparing is greek mythology to the bible and equating the two. So which one is right? Which one should we believe?

We know that the bible records prophesies, and then fulfills those prophesy over and over, many times hundreds if not thousands of years later. There are over 300 prophesies about Jesus alone that he fulfilled.

There is the person of Jesus himself. He lived. His deeds were recorded. There was no dispute about this. The NT was written within 70 years of his death, while eyewitnesses were still alive to verify or deny the authority and accuracy of the events.

It is like the holocaust in the 1940's. One of the most horrific events of the 20th century. We know this happened. There were/are eyewitnesses, written accounts, photgraphs etc..If there was any evidence this didn't happen it would be known by now. There is no dispute. So when the leader or Iran, whatshisname, claims it never happened, we can accurately and comfortably say "this guy is nuts".The historocity of the holocaust survives becasue we know that it is true.

Such it is with the NT. It survives because it is true. And we know it. Jesus tells us that the OT is true also as even he believed it and had every opportunity to correct any mistakes in it...he didn't.

So we have fulfilled prophesy like none that has ever been or ever will be, we have the person of Jesus Christ Himself, and we have the bible.

Can Greek mythology compare to this?

Now one can believe in mythology if they want, but it too requires much more faith than believing in God Jesus and the Bible.

And yes this is the same God who removed a pagan tribe from the promised lands in order to preserve the bloodline of Jesus, from Adam to Noah, to Abraham to David, to Jesus Himself. For without Jesus, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get right with God.