Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrack (Discovery's "Lost Tomb of Jesus")

To: AnAmericanMother; Rastus

Much of these stories are heresies from around the same period - Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, etc. Some manuscipts have turned up in Egypt and are very old. I think it is definately legit to have a show toalking about this stuff but they always time it around christian holidays which is a pretty big slap in my mind.

21 posted on 04/12/2007 7:13:32 AM PDT by statered ("And you know what I mean.")

Well, now, that's a very clever idea that I hadn't thought of!

Of COURSE these stories are medieval superhero comic books or dime store novels!

22 posted on 04/12/2007 7:39:26 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))

23 posted on 04/12/2007 8:34:05 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Monday, April 2, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)

To: ApplegateRanch

Thanks ApplegateRanch. No ping, just adding to the catalog.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

24 posted on 04/12/2007 8:36:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Monday, April 2, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)

25 posted on 04/12/2007 8:38:59 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)

I find that some of the dumbest people are scientists who think they know so much but are simply being used unwittingly by the darkside. It happens everyday in the public school system with the false evolution teaching being foisted onto kids without the whole truth about it being shown. And then many adults wonder why there is such a high drop out and crime rate! How about teaching the whole truth rather than one side. The darkside loves to cast doubt to make us fall and feel meaningless.

26 posted on 04/12/2007 9:18:47 AM PDT by fabian

ROTFLMAO! This is a first: "Evolution causes drop outs and crime rates". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

27 posted on 04/12/2007 10:07:56 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)

To: RadioAstronomer

ROTFLMAO! This is a first: "Evolution causes drop outs and crime rates". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Aren't you aware that before Darwin, every person on earth had a Ph. D. in multiple disciplines? That crime started in 1859? Racism, too. This proves how evil Darwin's theory was: it took only a year after the theory was published for the American Civil War to break out.

28 posted on 04/12/2007 11:31:17 AM PDT by Gumlegs

being dishonest to students and not allowing a full disclosure about all of the holes in the evolution theory and not allowing competing scientific theories of creationism and ID is all meant unwittingly to cast doubt about God. If you don’t think that adds to a feeling of hopelessness and despair you need to wake up. It’s so obvious.

29 posted on 04/12/2007 10:28:57 PM PDT by fabian

Thanks for the ping!

30 posted on 04/12/2007 11:17:42 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl

Here’s another interesting article related to this piece of news :

THE TOMB THAT BOMBED

http://www.tektonics.org/tombbomb.html#backtrack

31 posted on 04/13/2007 1:43:49 PM PDT by SirLinksalot

being[sic] dishonest to students

Dishonest how?

and not allowing a full disclosure about all of the holes in the evolution theory

Name them. Ond once you've done that, show how these alleged "holes" would support anything else.

and not allowing competing scientific theories of creationism and ID

Neither of those is a scientific theory.

is all meant unwittingly to cast doubt about God.

Usually it's called deliberate. You're quite kind. But nothing in science is meant, wittingly or otherwise, to cast doubt about God. It's meant to advance human knowledge.

If you don’t think that adds to a feeling of hopelessness and despair you need to wake up.

To what point in history to you want to roll back science? The TOE dates from 1959. Let's see ... germ theory is out, so I hope you like being helpless in the face of infectious disease. Women routinely died in childbirth. How glorious. Heavier-than-air flight is impossible, and so is the internet. Did you write your post with a quill pen? How did it get to my house?

It’s so obvious.

>Snort<

32 posted on 04/14/2007 9:19:01 AM PDT by Gumlegs

Well, well, well. What a surprise.

33 posted on 04/14/2007 9:21:32 AM PDT by RichInOC (Jesus is coming back soon...and boy, is He ticked off. [I'm trying to keep it clean.])

Oh, by the way, I would have purely loved to see them prove that those were the Jesus and his family in that crypt. Or rather to see them try. I have these mental images of somebody time-traveling back two thousand years with DNA swabs.

Comedy, my friends. Pure comedy.

34 posted on 04/14/2007 9:26:26 AM PDT by RichInOC (Jesus is coming back soon...and boy, is He ticked off. [I'm trying to keep it clean.])

The TOE dates from 1959.

Only off by a century. What's a hundred years more-or-less?

35 posted on 04/14/2007 11:13:22 AM PDT by Gumlegs

I don’t want to roll back science at all but toe is simply bad science. The proposed transitional fossils are not clearly so at all and even many anthropoligists admitt that there just are not any transitional fossils. If there were there would be no debate whatsoever. The gradual morphing of many different animal forms into other animal forms are not in the fossil record. That is a fact...not wishfull thinking and pure conjecture as some toe scientists use to their own foolishness. You stated that ID and creationism are not theories which shows a complete lack of honesty on your part. Either that or you are very badly misinformed. Can’t really have a meaningful debate with someone who doesn’t even acknowledge the very viable alternative theories. I hope you will open your mind a little bit and be more honest.

36 posted on 04/14/2007 5:48:36 PM PDT by fabian

I don’t want to roll back science at all but toe is simply bad science.

Kindly state your criteria for “good” vs. “bad” science. If there are any entries on the list about agreeing with your interpretation of your religion, it's not scientific in and of itself.

The proposed transitional fossils are not clearly so at all and even many anthropoligists[sic]admitt[sic] that there just are not any transitional fossils.

This statement only seems plausible if you know nothing about paleontology and get your information from creationist websites. You might try consulting archeologists as well as paleontologists.

If there were there would be no debate whatsoever.

There is, in fact, no debate whatsoever among people who actually know the science involved. The only "debate" is between science and people utterly ignorant of science.

The gradual morphing of many different animal forms into other animal forms are[sic] not in the fossil record. That is a fact...not wishfull[sic] thinking and pure conjecture as some toe[sic] scientists use to their own foolishness.

You continue to expose your ignorance. Again, try books, websites, magazines, anything written by people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to archeology and paleontology. Your local creationist crank probably knows less about these subjects than he (she), does about brain surgery.

You stated that ID and creationism are not theories which shows a complete lack of honesty on your part.

Next time, try reading for comprehension. I said neither one is a “scientific theory,” which happens to be accurate. Actually, you yourself used the term "scientific theory" before. Are the goal posts moving or don't you know the difference?(In order to be considered scientific, a theory must be capable of disproof. How would you go about disproving either ID or creationism?).

Either that or you are very badly misinformed. Can’t really have a meaningful debate with someone who doesn’t even acknowledge the very viable alternative theories. I hope you will open your mind a little bit and be more honest.

There are no other “viable” scientific theories, and I’m not interested in debating theology. You can’t have a meaningful debate with someone utterly ignorant of the topic at hand, either. Don’t assume that because I don’t agree with your religion, I’m dishonest.

37 posted on 04/14/2007 6:37:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs

you are sadly so full of yourself with what you believe to be scientific it is really sad. ID and creationism are indeed scientific theories and are acknowledged thus by many scientists. Because it may not fit into your narrow definition of a scientific theory does not in anyway discount it. You guys tend to try and reframe certain definitons to exclude viable alternatives to toe. It may work in public schools but it’s not reality. And you continue to expose your lack of understanding about the reality of the debate between creationism and evolution theory. If you honestly believe that the debate is over you are really way too lost in your “scientific” thoughts. There are so many very reputable scientists on both sides that engage in the debate all the time. To characterize creation websites and their authors as cranks shows a kind of prejudice not unlike any other predjudice which is motivated by a kind of anger. You probably don’t see that...too wrapped up in your head knowledge. Hope you wake up a bit and stop being so narrow minded. Who made you so bitter towards religion?

38 posted on 04/14/2007 10:26:04 PM PDT by fabian

you[sic] are sadly so full of yourself with what you believe to be scientific it is really sad.

It’s not what I “believe” to be scientific, it’s what science is. You are aware that Michael Behe stated under oath in a court of law that for ID to be considered a scientific theory, the definition of what is a scientific theory would have to change? Even Behe admits that as things stand now, ID is not a scientific theory. QED.

And by the way I'll reiterate, this was Behe's own sworn testimony, not a holding of the court. You can't lay this off on an "activist judge."

You are aware that he ALSO admitted that if the definition were changed enough to include ID, it would be vague enough to include astrology? You can be as sad as you like about what I consider to be science, but, unfortunately for your feelings, I’m the one using the correct definition according to science.

ID and creationism are indeed scientific theories and are acknowledged thus by many scientists.

Kindly name them, and show us where they make these statements. I’ve already shown the contortions Behe had to go through.

Because it may not fit into your narrow definition of a scientific theory does not in anyway discount it.

Like I said, it’s not my definition.

You guys tend to try and reframe certain definitons[sic] to exclude viable alternatives to toe.

Science defines science; your religion does not, and Webster's does not. Or do you think scientists named the different quarks by tasting them? (I really want to see an answer to this one).

It may work in public schools but it’s not reality.

Sorry. It is reality.

And you continue to expose your lack of understanding about the reality of the debate between creationism and evolution theory. If you honestly believe that the debate is over you are really way too lost in your “scientific” thoughts. There are so many very reputable scientists on both sides that engage in the debate all the time.

What I said was, and what you left out, was that within science there is no debate about creationism or ID with regard to the TOE. Everyone working in the field accepts one variant or other of the TOE; the debates are about details. You can probably find someone … Behe comes to mind … who will carry on about the scientific nature of ID, but when it comes to testifying under oath, it becomes readily apparent that Behe’s assuming some definition of science no one in the field accepts.

To characterize creation websites and their authors as cranks shows a kind of prejudice not unlike any other predjudice which is motivated by a kind of anger.

What you’ve just shown is your continuing inability to read with comprehension. Here’s what I wrote:

You continue to expose your ignorance. Again, try books, websites, magazines, anything written by people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to archeology and paleontology. Your local creationist crank probably knows less about these subjects than he (she), does about brain surgery.

[Underlining added].

Got that? Your local crank.

It’s right here in this thread. I’m amazed at the audacity with which you’ve attempt to distort something right here for everyone to see! No complex "click on this link" activity required!

You probably don’t see that...too wrapped up in your head knowledge. Hope you wake up a bit and stop being so narrow minded.

Coyoteman has repeatedly posted a list of terms as used in science, and he’s just as often noted that the creationist websites are not doing science, they’re doing apologetics.

If you want apologetics, fine. Just don’t pretend it’s science.

Who made you so bitter towards religion?

You’re very droll. Why would you assume that because I don’t accept your version of your religion and the notion that it and it alone should control science, that I am bitter towards all religion? Do you accept the many religions or versions thereof that have no problem whatever with the Theory of Evolution? If they are in error, please convince them first.

In any case, I’m not bitter, I am wary. Are you aware that we’ve got fools right here at FR who post radical Islamist propaganda because it attacks the TOE? And when informed that they’re posting radical Islamist propaganda, they cyber-shrug and say they do it because the bits they like attack science and agree with their religion!

Call them Islam’s Useful Idiots.

Can you answer any of the questions I've posted to you in this thread?

39 posted on 04/15/2007 10:42:05 AM PDT by Gumlegs

To: fabian; Gumlegs

You stated that ID and creationism are not theories which shows a complete lack of honesty on your part. Either that or you are very badly misinformed.

Sorry, but it looks rather that you are the one who is misinformed.

Here are some definitions of terms as used by scientists. These may help straighten out your confusion. Pay particular attention to the definitions of theory, hypothesis, and belier:

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

40 posted on 04/15/2007 2:44:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794