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

The Jerusalem Post ^ | 4/11/07 | Etgar Lefkovits

[Reaganesque]

Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.

The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.

The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.

But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.

The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.

[fabian]

O please...local or not, the point I made about you using the term crank along with creationism shows a prejudice you have which taints all of your “knowledge”. You are a confusing person and are trying to split hairs and narrow true defintions. I don’t know about Behe but am more familiar with creationism theory and the fact that it has much more evidence to it than evolution. Actually, macro evolution of one species turning into another has never been observed so it fails one of the tests of a true theory.
It is simply a fact that creationism is a viable theory and for you to try and deny that is dishonest. And Websters most certainly does have true definitions...give me a break. They don’t neccessarily fit into your viwe of science but science in fact does include so much more than the natural world. I have a fairly long list of scientists who believe in creationism theory...some of whom used to be fooled by the false evolution theory. I need to find it and will send it to you. You really need to be more honest in the debate and stop trying to stifle it by denying a true theory. Here is a good site that demonstrates some of creation theories very valid points. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

[Coyoteman]

Here is a good site that demonstrates some of creation theories very valid points.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

I checked out your link. I examined the section on radiometric dating, and in particular the subsection on radiocarbon dating.

It is a pile of misrepresentations and conjecture masquerading as pseudo-science, most likely in hopes of being mistaken for real science by those who don't know any better.

Any scientists who produced work of that quality would be laughed out of their profession.

I hope this one section, with which I have some familiarity, is not representative of the site as a whole; but I have my doubts.

If you disagree, pick what you think is the strongest point arguing against the accuracy of the radiocarbon method and let me know. I'll see what I can provide as a response.

[Coyoteman]

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.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

The issue of transitionals and gradual change has been addressed in detail in many previous posts, three of which I have linked below. (There are many more examples.)

DANGER! Science alert! Click at your own risk!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568474/posts?page=748#748

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1469072/posts?page=23#23

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500340/posts?page=29#29

And as an added bonus, a picture of a transitional! Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[fabian]

what is really conjecture is your idea of transitional fossils. Those skulls are simply different types of primates and humans. Your side has a bad history of being awefully creative with the fossil record...I’m sure you are aware of some of the frauds presented as our ancestors. Where are the many thousands if not millions of clear examples of one life form morphing into another? They simply aren’t there but you guys desparetly cling onto a failing theory regardless. It’s really too bad because the many observable facts presented by creationism are so much more interesting.

[Coyoteman]

Those skulls are simply different types of primates and humans.

Really?

Can you tell me which are primates and which are humans?

And please, provide some basis, other than personal opinion, for your answer.

[fabian]

it is absolutley conjecture to say those are transitionals. And no other bones provided. Come on...something’s fishy here! Of course there were huge primate type animals in history and actually still in present. Many reputable people have seen a bigfoot type creature which if the skull of one were discovered you might claim as a transitional life form. TOE is a failing theory and the plain facts show it just as many facts of creationism point to an author of life. It is partly faith as it should be but science does back up faith to a large degree.
One needs much more faith to believe toe...a doubt type of faith though.

[Coyoteman]

it is absolutley conjecture to say those are transitionals. And no other bones provided. Come on...something’s fishy here! Of course there were huge primate type animals in history and actually still in present.

Huge primates? What does that have to do with anything?

Many reputable people have seen a bigfoot type creature which if the skull of one were discovered you might claim as a transitional life form.

Bigfoot, if it exists, is most likely a descendant of Gigantopithecis. What does that have to do with what I posted? (I studied under the leading bigfoot expert, so if you want to debate bigfoot bring it on.) But, we were discussing transitionals, a subject you seem to have forgotten.

TOE is a failing theory and the plain facts show it just as many facts of creationism point to an author of life. It is partly faith as it should be but science does back up faith to a large degree.

Show me the evidence. Show me the facts. You are batting zero so far, so forgive me if I don't just take your word for this.

One needs much more faith to believe toe...a doubt type of faith though.

?

I am not sure what you mean. I do science, what has faith to do with science? Could it be you are doing apologetics?

[fabian]

well, how about the dna evidence for creationism. The dna code has a numberic system to it and is as complex or more so than a computer code. It is certainly responsible for much more complex activities than a computer code. To say that it has come about by mere chance and evolved through millions of years does take a sort of faith...although a doubt type. What I mean by that is it defies logic and reason. For every logical discovery there is an opposite doubt about it which is proposed by the darkside. You are falling into it’s “knowledge” trap thinking that you have the truth.

[Coyoteman]

well, how about the dna evidence for creationism.

I am not sure what you mean by that.

As far as I have read, DNA supports the theory of evolution.

There are two sites in western North America spanning the date generally given for the global flood (ca. 4300 years ago). One example dates to 10,300 years ago. The second, from my own research, dates to 5,300 years ago. In both cases there is genetic continuity from these early dates to living individuals.

These examples show that mtDNA does not support the overall creation/global flood scenario.

There is also genetic evidence from a variety of primates, as well as some fossils, which suggests you are not correct in your statement.

[fabian]

regardless of the timing...who programmed the dna code? It simply cound not appear by itself. Imperical evidence for a Creator.

[Gumlegs]

O please...local or not, the point I made about you using the term crank along with creationism shows a prejudice you have which taints all of your “knowledge”.

Your point was based on a misreading of what I posted, and therefore invalid. That you would attempt to use it after acknowledging your mistake gives the impression that you care nothing whatever for evidence and everything for apologetics.

It is further preposterous to attempt to use my use of the word "crank" as a prophylactic against anything I post in the future. Let's see if we can follow your logic... "Gumlegs used the word 'crank.' This means when Gumlegs posts again that W. C. Fields is his source for the FR name ‘Gumlegs,’ the assertion is ‘tainted.’"

Right.

You are a confusing person and are trying to split hairs and narrow true defintions.

Point out where you're confused. Perhaps we can help.

You can help us help you by defining a "true" definition. Usually, scientific definitions are quite narrow, because they’re used in specific settings for specific purposes. I’m just trying to be accurate, and as far as I know, all the definitions and terms I'm using are used accurately. I'll ask the question again, "Do you think scientists named the different quarks by tasting them?" Please answer it. Your actually answering a question will have considerable novelty value, so please get on with it.

I don’t know about Behe but am more familiar with creationism theory and the fact that it has much more evidence to it than evolution.

Behe is the guy who came up with "Irreducible Complexity." He's one of the leading voices of the ID movement. I naively assumed you might have known something about it because you kept referring to it. In case anyone had been uncertain on the matter, it is now obvious that you’ll post about subjects you know nothing about ... you just admitted as much.

Could it be that your only interest in mentioning ID is that somewhere you've gotten the impression its in opposition to the Theory of Evolution?

There is no scientific theory called "Creationism." If you have a theory, why not post it here so we can all take a look at it? Question one will be, "How can it be falsified?" so be prepared to answer it. For novelty value.

Actually, macro evolution of one species turning into another has never been observed so it fails one of the tests of a true theory. Speciation has been observed. You're wrong.

It is simply a fact that creationism is a viable theory and for you to try and deny that is dishonest.

You keep asserting this, but you’ve never provided any evidence, and repeating a statement doesn’t make it any more true. Creationism doesn't rise to the level of science at all.

And Websters most certainly does have true definitions...give me a break. They don’t neccessarily fit into your viwe of science but science in fact does include so much more than the natural world.

I'll give you a break to this extent: Webster's is true as far as it goes. It does not, however, contain an exhaustive list of terms as they are used in specific disciplines, and it doesn’t pretend to.

"Science in fact does include so much more than the natural world," is a statement no one knowing anything about science could make with a straight face. Science is the systematic attempt to explain the natural world using natural means. Maybe you know more about Behe than you're letting on.

I have a fairly long list of scientists who believe in creationism theory...some of whom used to be fooled by the false evolution theory. I need to find it and will send it to you. You really need to be more honest in the debate and stop trying to stifle it by denying a true theory. Here is a good site that demonstrates some of creation theories very valid points. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

I expect the list is the one posted here several times. It's most unimpressive.

I’m flattered that you think that by posting to FR I’m stifling scientific debate. I guess I’ll go out and apply for an award or something. But do us all a favor -- you just stated that evolution theory, or some variant of it (it's hard to tell from context), is "false." How is it false? You seem very good at generating a large smoke screen, but I've noticed you never seem to answer a question. I'll repost the ones I've asked in this thread that you've ignored so far:

In post 32, I asked you to name the holes in the TOE. You’ve failed to name any.

In that same post, I also asked you how these alleged holes would support another theory. So far, no response.

In post 37, I asked you your criteria for “good” vs. “bad” science. You’ve never told us what they are.

In that same post, I also asked you how you would go about disproving creationism or ID. You’ve never responded.

In post 39, I asked, “Do you accept the many religions or versions thereof that have no problem whatever with the Theory of Evolution?” You’ve never answered.

Usually in a debate, both sides ask and answer questions. So far, you’ve shown no interest in engaging in the part of the debate that requires you to answer questions. But it’s not too late; they’re still there.

I see Coyoteman has already replied regarding the website you posted. I stand with his post.

[Gumlegs]

well, how about the dna evidence for creationism. The dna code has a numberic[sic], system to it and is as complex or more so than a computer code. It is certainly responsible for much more complex activities than a computer code. To say that it has come about by mere chance and evolved through millions of years does take a sort of faith...although a doubt type. What I mean by that is it defies logic and reason. For every logical discovery there is an opposite doubt about it which is proposed by the darkside. You are falling into it’s “knowledge” trap thinking that you have the truth.

fabian continues his droll jests. I'm beginning to sense that this is all a subtle joke.

I mean, everyone knows germ theory was initially rejected because the idea that microscopic creatures were strong enough to kill a man "defied logic and reason."

Well done, fabian. You had me fooled.

[atlaw]

Those skulls are simply different types of primates and humans.

According to the "theory of creationism," where did these "different types of primates and humans" come from, and what has happened to them?

[fabian]

there you go again misrepresenting my posts. I did answer some of your questions and brought up a very viable point about the dna code supporting creationism. And my points about the total lack of transitional fossils,(which, by the way, is admitted to by numerous anthropogist museum directors. I can supply you with names if you’d like). I don’t know how to debate someone as confusing as you, you’re not intellectually honest and I’m sure that comes from your predjudice towards the creationist theory. Hope you wake up out of your “knowledge” ego trip.

[shield]

bfl

[fabian]

God created all of us and the whole animal kingdom. Obviously there are so many different types of primates still existing and some we haven’t discovered the bones of...such as bigfoot which has been seen by many reputable witnesses. The skulls proposed as transitionals are wishfull thinking and pure speculation with no other bones attached. Evolutionists give many people very little credit for their commonsense which sees the huge holes in their false theory. But they are really confused...so much so that they don’t even know it.

[RightWhale]

who programmed the dna code?

On the Watchmaker: there was no watch until somebody found it and realized it was a watch. As far as programming the DNA: chromosome crossing would truly ruin a computer program. Also, seeing a pattern or code in the DNA is what we do. There are no patterns in nature, patterns are identified in statistics, which is ascendant in physics for the time being.

[JWinNC]

"...story is losing its scholarly support"

It never had any.

I watched it. It was pathetic. That fellow that did it has actually done some other stuuf that was pretty good... I don't know what happened here.

The most sought after body of all time and they still haven't found him.

jw

[fabian]

well, there is such a thing as evil and the chromosome crossing must be a result of that. In what way does that deny the immense complexity of the dna code? There is most diffinetly patterns in nature and the code has a distinct numeric system to it. It is responsible for far more than any computer code. I mean can a computer code use it’s information and set up an immense factory manufacturing billions of cells all with their own task to run our bodies? You need to look into it before you make inaccurate statements about it.

[RightWhale]

MThere is most diffinetly patterns in nature

Not until we see the patterns, which is what we do. Also, we each see different patterns, and some see patterns where others see none. The patterns are entirely in our minds and art, and our art is visible only to us and not even all of us.