E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Documentary filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, co-author of the new book "The Jesus Discovery," discusses how a robotic arm was used to make archaeological discoveries during a New York news conference today.
Now that the word about "the Jesus Discovery" is out in the open, outside experts are weighing in — and many of them look upon the robotic exploration of a 1st-century Jerusalem tomb as a technological tour de force resulting in an archaeological faux pas.
On one level, the "Jesus Discovery" investigators saw this project as a follow-up on the sensational claim they made five years earlier in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," that Jesus and members of his family were buried in what is now a southeast residential neighborhood of Jerusalem. On another level, they set forth what they said were the earliest known evidence of Christian references in the Holy City — in the form of an inscription referring to resurrection on one casket, and a fishlike design on another casket.
Today, several experts specializing in 1st-century Christianity said the investigators failed to make their case on either level.
"In my assessment, there's zero percent chance that their theory is correct," said Andrew Vaughn, executive director of the American Schools of Oriental Research, or ASOR.
Christopher Rollston, an expert in Semitic epigraphy at Emmanuel Christian Seminary in Tennessee, said that although the underground chamber is "a nice tomb ... it's hard to press it into service as an impressive find."
Some archaeologists were familiar with the project months before it came into the spotlight, but non-disclosure agreements kept them from commenting until today's press announcement at Discovery Times Square in New York. The project has already spawned a book by scriptural scholar James Tabor and filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, titled "The Jesus Discovery," and a documentary about the find is due to air on the Discovery Channel this spring.
When today's embargo lifted, the criticism from outside experts hit with full force on the ASOR Blog.
"Nothing in the book 'revolutionizes our understanding of Jesus or early Christianity,' as the authors and publisher claim, and we may regard this book as yet another in a long list of presentations that misuse not only the Bible but also archaeology," Duke University biblical scholar Eric Meyers declared.
Jodi Magness, a religious-studies professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said "it pains me to see archaeology hijacked in the service of non-scientific interests, whether they are religious, financial, or other." In her view, Tabor, Jacobovici and their colleagues set out to dig up evidence to support their earlier claims about a different tomb nearby, the so-called "Jesus Family Tomb" — and then rustle up a fresh round of media attention.
"Professional archaeologists do not search for objects or treasures such as Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail," she wrote. "Usually these sorts of expeditions are led by amateurs (nonspecialists) or academics who are not archaeologists. Archaeology is a scientific process."
Old and new claims
The main objection to the claims for the Jesus Family Tomb, like the claims themselves, retraces ground that's been well trod since 2007: Just because bone boxes are marked with the name "Jesus" and the names of his brothers and sisters, as mentioned in the Bible, doesn't necessarily mean these are the actual biblical figures.
Tabor and Jacobovici produced a statistical analysis looking at the frequency of names in ancient Jerusalem, and claimed that the close fit to the names on Jesus' family tree couldn't be just a coincidence. Last month, Tabor said further research has strengthened the case he and Jacobovici laid out in 2007.
The critics insisted once again that a statistical argument could never win the day. "Dramatic claims require dramatic evidence. ... The claims of Tabor and Jacobovici for this tomb are no more convincing now than they were then," Rollston wrote.
But what about the inscription in the more recently explored tomb, known as the Patio Tomb? And what about the fish? Rollston said the fish was more probably a type of ornamental design typically seen on Jewish bone boxes, known as a nephesh tower. Where Tabor and Jacobovici saw the "fins" of the fish, Rollston saw the eaves of the tower's roof.
Even if it was intended to be a fish, "it would most naturally be understood as simply a reflection of a nautical motif in a tomb," or perhaps representative of the deceased's occupation — for example, a fishmonger. Unlike Tabor, Rollston did not rule out the possibility that a Jew would have such a design engraved on the bone box.
James Tabor / UNCC
James Tabor, a religious-studies researcher at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, outlined these designs found in various contexts, including "nephesh" images that have been found carved on 1st-century Jewish caskets, a fish drawing found in a Christian catacomb, and the "Patio Tomb fish" design seen in the tomb that Tabor and his colleagues explored using a camera-equipped robotic arm. Tabor's critics say the fishlike design is actually a variant of the nephesh tower design.
As for the inscription, Rollston said the resurrection connection was questionable. Tabor, Jacobovici and their colleagues suggested that it could be interpreted as reading, "Divine Jehovah (Yahweh), lift up, lift up," or "The Divine Jehovah raises up from [the dead]." But Rollston said the first letter in the word that was said to refer to Jehovah — IAEO — looked like a T rather than an I.
"This can't be an iota," he told me, "and that's the one letter that has to be there."
He also questioned the interpretation of the inscription's key word, "UPsOO," or "hupso," which would be a form of the verb "to lift up." Even if one assumes that's what was intended, the word wouldn't necessarily refer to raising up in the resurrection sense, he said. And even if one assumes it was indeed meant as a reference to resurrection, there were some Jewish sects back then — such as the Pharisees — that believed in a general resurrection.
"For someone to state that this is an early Christian tomb, there really has to be some clear and decisive evidence to back up that statement," Rollston told me. "And it just really isn't here."
In a follow-up email, Tabor told me that the "tower will not float" as an alternate explanation for the fishlike image. He also pointed to the comments he posted on the ASOR Blog, taking further issue with the nephesh tower interpretation. In a comment addressed to Rollston, he said, "We have much to discuss, but I look forward to doing it face to face."
On the positive side...
Not every outside expert was totally critical: The Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted Yuval Baruch, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, as saying that Tabor and Jacobovici may well be right about the fish. Baruch noted that the fishlike image was not photographed "in the best light," but added: "If it is indeed a fish, it is fantastic. It has no parallel."
Baruch cautioned against reading too much into a single decoration, however. "Different decorations are being discovered all the time," he told Haaretz.
Rollston and ASOR's Vaughn both said the robotic-arm exploration technique that Tabor and his colleagues used to explore the 1st-century tomb held promise for future digs. Israel's religious and civil authorities are reluctant to have ancient sites disturbed, and even if the excavations are approved, they can create huge disruptions for residential areas like the one where the tomb currently in question is located. Tabor and his colleagues circumvented many of those typical problems by using a camera-equipped robotic arm that they snaked down through a pipe going into the tomb.
"The robotic-arm technology used by James Tabor is truly amazing," Vaughn said. "To be able to explore in a relatively non-invasive way, and to respect the artifacts and bones that may be present there, is certainly of much value."
Magness, however, stressed in her blog posting that robotic-arm video couldn't take the place of a full-fledged dig.
"The archaeological endeavor involves piecing together all available information, not just one artifact taken out of context," she wrote. "Context is the reason that archaeologists go to so much trouble to document the provenance of every feature and artifact dug up on an excavation. The current claim is based on finds that have no context, as they have not been excavated. All we have are photos taken by a robotic arm of objects (or parts of objects), the dates and identification of which are unknown or unclear."
Rollston said further analysis could well shed more light on the central question raised by the current controversy: How did the first Christian communities emerge and manifest themselves? But the process of getting definitive answers doesn't necessarily match the typical time frame for a television production or book project.
"The wheels of scholarship, like the wheels of justice, grind slowly but surely," he told me.
More about biblical brouhahas:
- New find revives 'Jesus Tomb' flap
- Claims about tomb stir tempest
- Messianic message stirs debate
- Return to King Solomon's mines
- Help scientists decipher 'lost' gospel
- Gallery: The archaeology of Christianity
- Experts stumped by markings in Jerusalem
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Much like the Noah's Ark "find" and the Shroud of Turin "discovery," any real assessment by actual scientists who don't already have a preconceived conclusion exposes this tomb as, at best, an unspectacular discovery. As much as Christians want to play in the realm of science and fact and rational thinking, the nature of Christianity and the nature of science are quite honestly incompatible. There is just too much magic and superstition in the Bible to be taken seriously by the scientific method. A 6,000-year-old Earth, talking snakes, a worldwide flood, and a man who can live unharmed for three days inside a fish... these are just a few examples. Just stick to calling it a baseless faith and leave it at that. At least that's honest.
you lost me w/ the 2nd line of your first sentence, seems obvious on your first line of reasoning so good on you for that, but the tomb by any scientific reasoning was destroyed long ago to make it seem that jesus never even existed, but whatever, keep on, you make some points w/ reasoning that i can agree w/ but that's easy to do as i am a reasoning person that's living inside a fish eating honey out of a lion, bee's a buzzing but all good they make honey and too busy doing that to sting me :)
Be careful how and how much you factor things out, you may end up over simplifying down to your own realm of knowledge which leads you to nowhere.
Context ... like an archaeological dig, one must understand the full context of the Bible to decipher the ... "magic and superstition"
Before discarding the Bible and it's teachings assess the societies it has built and those that other religions have and then ask yourself which one would you like to live in?
Very easy to criticize but very hard to accept fault.
Well, I guess I meant that yesterday, the media were all over this as "the Jesus tomb" or "the Jesus discovery," so it's more an indictment of the media sensationalizing and distorting the nature of these finds. But when it comes to religion, people do tend to use inductive, rather than deductive, reasoning. They have a pre-determined conclusion they want to support, so they approach the work in that manner. My point is, real scientists don't do this.
You're right Chad... The famous old saying about people digging for these religious artifacts like the Ark was that they went to the Holy Land with a bible in one hand and a shovel in the other.
They will always find something that they will twist into meeting their hope for find.
Hell, that's what every new cult, sect and Joe Schmoe does with scripture when they open the Bible. They might as well dig in Holy Land sand and do the same thing.
JoMan... A good illustration of your point is an article in the weeks New Yorker regarding the Book of Revelation and how it has been misunderstood and twisted over the centuries.
@Chad-2033112
Make sure you remember all of that when you stand before Jesus & he asks why you denied him during your life. "Depart from me..." will be the most horrific words ever heard on that day...
@Chad-2033112, and anybody else who are reading 'religion' vs. science in this.
Christians wouldn't be thinking Jesus would have a tomb. They'd think he'd risen. The ones doing this "investigation" are either of another religion or atheist - and I'm pretty sure they're atheist. Muslims don't think Jesus died, and Buddhists and other asian religions could care less. They could be Jewish, but that also seems doubtful, as the Jewish people have bigger fish to fry than worrying about what some sub-sect that branched away from them is doing.
These guys - like people who believe "The Jesus Myth Theory" and others - are almost certainly Atheist, or at the very least Anti-Religious. And at the end of the day are no better than Desperate YECs looking for Noahs ark.
- Sonfaro
The "fish" as proof? The man known as Jesus was born and died an observant Jew, thus it seems unlikely that his bone box would have been decorated with a symbol created by his followers to identify themselves some years after his departure. Much as the "Shroud of Turin" is made of 12th C. fabric imprinted with the features of a European not Semite man. The splinters of "Noah's Ark" that arise from time to time, usually have wood from a non-Middle East area and flunk carbon testing for age.
l-h may be on to something with her/his buzzard speculation. Support for this notion may be found in the historic fact the victims of crucification were left on their cross for days, not the "hours" claimed by Christians.
Carl re: Chad Wasn't Jesus supposed to be about forgiveness? In any event, there's no evidence that dead rabbis, however kinded-hearted, have the power of speech.
OK hotshot, give just one scientific reason for your belief, your "blind faith belief" (that's a religion) that the universe is billions of years old, the earth is supposed to be 4+ billion years old, and/or that we descended from monkey bones, or that primordal mud puddle. I said a scientific reason.
Ad'M - You obviously have never taken the time to consider that the vast majority of wars throughout time can be credited to religion. Look at the hundreds of thousands who died needlessly in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem which hunts, etc. If it weren't for religion, Hitler would not have been trying to annihilate the Jews. These incidents and others were all stem on religious differences that are based on the Bible. Actually, other religions have built societies that are much more peaceful and tolerant than those based on the Bible, for example, societies built by Native Americans before Europeans ever set foot on this continent.
Wow, but you miss the point. These "exposes" are meant to debunk Xtianity, not to forward its claims. Atheism has claimed for ages that the discovery of Jesus' tomb with bones inside would mean the religion was false. And now, some scientists are (falsely) pushing the claim that they've done just that. In other words, atheist fundamentalism is incompatible with science.
I think if you really look at it, there is no real proof that Jesus existed either. It's just that we now require science to prove wild accusations like this...
This tomb belongs to a man who once lived and died. If it was the man we now call Jesus Christ, it was Jesus Christ.
A box full of Jesus's bones would kind of knock the stuffing out of that whole "Resurrection" thing now, wouldn't it?
I love when ya'll threaten us with Hell. I might as well threaten you with Vishnu's wrath or Loki's torment or something. Would have about the same impact on you as your pathetically impotent threat has on me. What's cute is that you have the whole imagery worked out in your head, almost as if you enjoy imagining people that don't share your faith being condemned. One sick puppy.
Well, actually that Jacobovici guy is an observant Jew, if I'm not mistaken. I've watched his Archeology show on demand sometimes, he spends most of the time trying to prove the Bible as true - rather than false. They also make the argument in their earlier docubook that Jesus' ressurrection was originally traught as a spiritual one, and that it wasn't until later in Christianity that it became a physical ressurrection in doctrine.
And, as the night follows the day, the pseudoscience story turns to poo. Thanks for jerking your readers around again.
Carl - That's real "Christian" of you to wish hell and damnation on non-believers. Whatever happened to "Love they neighbor", etc.? If you were truly Christian, it would seem to me that you would not be so judgemental of others because judging them is not up to you. Perhaps you are not that secure in your beliefs, so it makes you feel better to think that those who are secure in their belief that there is no god will eventually suffer.
Working in the field I work in it's interesting to see how many that talk like Shuklak and Chad seem to find prayer when their life is in jeopardy. Quite a few atheist "find God" when it's "convenient" for them. Better pray, oh..uh sorry...Better do something when that happens...as again, seen many "atheist" on their death bed, be it accident, cancer, old age, FIND God and want to pray.
Go Figure..Do this, read the bible..in context...I also find that MOST (can't say all) atheist haven't got a clue about the bible, nor can they quote anything in context. Heck Obama can't quote the bible in context. But again, do what ever you do when you are dying...
Not saying you are "doomed" or anything like that, but it's really interesting how many atheist miraculously pray to God, whom they've protested belief in for so many years. And it seems to come when they "need" it.
It's the same comical attack mentality that THIS group did to Tebow, somehow twisting his prayers...attempting to alledge he was somehow praying for victories, which proves that those people have no clue and tend to be the MOST judgmental, far more than those they accuse of the same deeds.
@Chad -- While I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, I think you're misapplying it here. These archaelogists are working against the claims of the church, not the other way round. Their theories, if correct, would disporove the resurrection. Therefore, you can't say they're a bunch of Christians torturing science to factualize the faith; they're torturing science to do the opposite.
'Biblical archeology' is a huge industry in Israel. A good part of it is a typical scam artistry directed at gullible American evangelical Christians.
It's not proof of anything but it does merit further investigation. I think that it's interesting that religious scholars and apologists are demanding extraordinary proof when they don't hold themselves to the same standard.
Ever hear of the Big Bang theory? Not to be confrontational to you or anything, but have you ever taken a course in astronomy?
Pretty interesting, actually - how the universe actually began and our solar system was developed, including Earth, the sun, and the gas giants (you know, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, - which were all named after gods, b.t.w.) and their physical characteristics and compositions. Ever see actual images of these planets? Neat stuff. Planets violently inhospitable to life as we know it, but breathtakingly gorgeous nonetheless.
It's a fluke of nature that each one of us gets a shot at living and seeing this universe because the vast majority of gametes of all organisms never get a chance to fuse and form new life.
And we did NOT evolve from monkey bones, b.t.w. We evolved from APES. We share over 99 per cent of their DNA.
I'm going to believe science dating back 2000 yrs.when recent
Evidence is still inconclusive whether man is causing global warming. ...
Desperation, science can be a hoot.
I would suppose there are even more that cure the deity during those times as well. I don't think there are as many weak minded as you would like to think.
and we share DNA with PIGS...and it's called Big Bang Theory for a reason, it's ONE of many that are used to theorize how things happened.
What NO one has been able to explain in all of "that" is HOW in ALL the universe, life only exists in ONE place...PROVEN to date..unless you buy the alien pyramid stuff that is...Fluke on nature? HOW did it "conveniently" create reproduction? Too many flaws in this "science." If it's "random" then WHAT made Earth different from Jupitor, Mercury...sorry, WHY do humans have ability to show emotions that have been proven to be very different from any other life?
Too many flaws...The Problem with evolved from apes is...evolution removes the weaker species over time...Why then do these species still exist and NOT seem to be "evolving?" THe "chimps" that learn do so when placed in "human" controlled systems, otherwise, they remove the clothes, and resort back. These "tests" have been taking place for years and show that when these animals are removed from "controlled" environment, they drop the spoons, remove clothes and act like..APES...
Sorry, science by nature has many "theories" that have proof based on other "science" theories. Just these scientists refuse to address the flaws and many times can't answer very simple questions that discredit them, so instead they sling words....Go figure...Some Science conveniently dismisses the things it can't explain...
There is much empirical evidence to match scripture, that has already been found. The question is not whether Jesus existed really anymore,it is whether he was the true son of God. This is not the first ossuary found, another was found(years back) with the name of Jesus' brother dated back to the time of his(the brother)death.
@ Hoticket; Ever hear of quanutm fluctuations?lol. Who is to say that God did not make the big bang,were you there?lol
We did not come from apes, there are no connecting(intermediary)fossils to prove this, which is why Darwins theory was never substantiated.
I don't get this line of "reasoning" at all. Of course Jesus had a tomb! His dead body was, according to the Bible, placed in the tomb and a big rock was used to seal it. He may have "risen" according to the Christian fairy tale, but he'd still have had a tomb. Perhaps you meant that he didn't have a stone coffin? I don't know. But I always find it fascinating how little Christians usually know about their own religion. No curiosity or critical thinking at all in most cases, just blind acceptance of whatever is spoken from the pulpit. I admire people who actually have faith and have thoughtfully studied the history and evolution of their own religion. Unfortunately, people like that are very few and far between.
(Sigh) Again, with the ignorance and intolerance? Sheeesh.
The article is about the scientific discussion regarding the findings in the so-called 'Patio' tomb. Is it a fish or a typical Jewish symbol of the time, a 'nephresh'?
All the hype over the "Jesus Tomb" and attempts to tie the latest discovery back to the "Jesus Tomb" is just PR designed to sell books and promote cable-television documentaries. C'mon folks, you're smarter than this.
Let's try to focus here people, this is an amazing discovery and whether fish or nephresh the team should be applauded for the creation of the robotic arm which will allow the exploration of other sites with minimal disturbance of the artifacts inside.
Alan, a word with you, you have been very naughty, shamelessly stirring this bucket the way your are and I want you to go to your room and think about what you've done. You are grounded for the rest of the week. No television, internet or video games. Now go!
The rest of you, get a life, there are MUCH more important things going on in this country to discuss than the on-going friction between science and religion.
Not to split hairs, Hotticket, but humans and modern apes descended from a common hominid-type ancestor that couldn't be described as "ape" any more than it could be described as "human". Modern humans and apes are cousins, not grandparent-grandchild. Let's not give the scientifically ignorant more inaccurate information -- they make plenty of this up on their own!
Its hard to grasp evolution when all the parts never conclusively connects them to humans,there is no history where Religion their is. So rant and rave all you want, I don't like the way some of the denominations act or repel themselves I simply turn the other way..Be kind.
From the interview with Tabor on Huffingtonpost, his argument is not that he's "atheist" but that in early Christianity the belief was in a spiritualized resurrection and victory over death, not a materialist interpretation which came later during accretization with Greek and other near Eastern symbolic systems to explain the theology to new converts. Although as he points out there are at least two other Jewish sects of the time, the Pharisees and the Essenes who believed in bodily resurrection, his thought is that the resurrected spirit would have a perfected "spirit body" as someone as fundamentalist as Francis Shaefer argued for (of the religious right infamy). This is somewhat supported by the post resurrection Bible narratives that describe the witnesses not recognizing Jesus as the one talking to them at first and then recognizing him from what he says and then he disappears. I realize this still sounds like gobble-de-gook to a "nonbeliever" or a "believer" who believes Christian faith depends on a belief that the physical body was resurrected but to me it is an important distinction and interesting that this distinction in how early Christians thought of the resurrection is being researched. Without a time machine and with Jerusalem being wiped out at 70AD it is highly unlikely that any conclusions will ever be drawn, but it is a venue to try to recover using reason from the pseudohistorians starting in the 19th century to apply modern scientific methods to discredit matters of faith. It is always amazing to me that so many people take on faith that Jesus never lived.
I'm so glad there's still educated people like you out there
They may find the tomb where Jesus was laid, but they will never find his bones. That's because He's not dead. He's in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God the father from where He will judge the living and thedead.
I see this same pattern again and again... Scientists, hungry for funding to continue with their pet research project, trot out whatever they have as some potential huge breakthrough, fully aware that it will not stand up to scrutiny. But they have to do it because they need more money and this is a way to get big media attention and perhaps dig up (no pun intended) new investors and/or new interest in what they are doing. Science these days requires money, so scientists have gotten quite adept at playing the media to get exposure and/or more money.
To Thinkforyourself-2427469: You display your bias in your very own words. and that bias is as usual for most atheists and those who claim similar Independence of thought based in some form of hatred.
"He may have "risen" according to the Christian fairy tale, but he'd still have had a tomb"
If this were a topic about a tomb in Greece with the name of Theseus or an Irish Cairn with the inscription here lies Fin Macool or you would have used the phrase Greek of Irish Myth, or if it was a tomb with the name Lao Tzu you would have said Taoist Myth, etc however you chose to use the word fairy tale thus diminishing the historical importance of Christianity by linking it to gossamer winged fairies and illustrated Victorian hobgoblins. By seeking to diminish the very real historical importance of the worlds most popular and enduring religious movement you only diminish your own arguments. Athiests would do well to work with a little less biased, blind hatred and a little more of the critical intellectual independence they claim motivates them.
There are no intermediary links to prove evolution. Please do not show me the wrong list from wiki.This was the downfall of Darwins theories.
@ oldblue; Name one intermediary fossil to link species that you say evolved.If you do this you should win the nobel.lol please give your source.
add; You see how they say it is real but give not one example.
Yes old blue lets not. Read on sir.lol
edit; I will give you example,the Tarpon has been around for many millennium,has not changed at all did evolution forget the Tarpon.There have been no changes in thousands of years of anything,nor will there be in the next thousands years,did evolution just stop?I think not.
add;In reality, the 98 % similarity between human and chimpanzee genes, which now and then enters the agenda, is a propaganda-oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalization grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.
However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins. .O.k If Darwin's theory is correct why cant we see the intermediate forms of species,and the connecting links,Darwin did not have an answer to that,nor the archeological evidence to back it up, debunked his whole theory. Although there is ample evidence for many fossils,and species,records provide almost no evidence,for the intermediate connecting links.
I had to "dig' this out my old yahoo q n a archives, finding it was an "expedition" in itself.lol
The difference in me and you AtheistS is that I back up what I say with example and facts,not theory, which is all most of you have.
Barbarian's are killing Innocents in Afghanistan at the present moment because their *Holy Book* was dis-respected; and I am still supposed to show one Iota of respect to *Organized Religion* ??
Spare me the Fairy Tales and Superstition's; I choose to live in Reality, and remain there!!
Jerry-1573453
Jerry, we know the rate of radioactive decay of multiple elements, and we know what the byproducts are. We can simply measure the byproduct against the original element. In mantle, where the radioactive decay also takes place, the byproduct has a different density, and so the radioactive element seperates from the byproduct of decay. In cold stationary rocks, where there are concentrations of the radioactive element there are concentrations of the byproduct logarithmically proportional to the age in which the rock cooled. There is a always a portion of lead, and a portion of intermingled uranium.
Carbon dating is accurate in many conditions, but in some conditions the results can be skewed. Other radiomentric dating is highly accurate.
The biblical account of a young earth would be that a deceptive God intentionally placed radioactive isotopes and decayed byproducts in exact proportions to deceive geologists into conclusions of an old earth. He would have had to be consistent with the strata of evidentary, overlaying lava flows. WOW What a God!
@ chad; Your first post is popular but wrong,and you are getting voted up by atheistS. Granted there is some outlandish events in the OT. What you must understand is that the message of the bible is much more important than proving a burning bush, or water to wine, or a man living in a whale for three days.((Jonah)which is foretelling of Jesus' path to ressurection) this is why the fish shape is significant to the tomb of Jesus.
Now will you argue with one of the most intelligent men of all time? You see Chad you just speak, I show and prove.
Read "The Ancestors Tale" by Richard Dawkins with an open mind and learn something. He is an atheist and backs up what he says with facts.
There is absolutely no evidence of creationism or intelligent design.
We don't know life only exists in one place. We in fact believe it's near a statistical impossibility that no other planet sustains life. In the somewhat newly discovered "el Gordo" galaxy cluster alone, there is 4 quadrillion suns. All of those suns have a chance of having planets. Those planets have a shot at being just the right distance and angle to their sun given it's size. These planets, like all planets, are bombarded by meteors and such. When the right element crashes into the planet a simple life form will evolve and it's decomposition will begin an atmosphere, and so, and so forth. There are simply too many planets with the right conditions, the right amount of water and land, etc., for there not to be life elsewhere.
Thing is...the Big Bang happened at the same time for everyone, so no one is drasticly ahead of the others. A few million years is a blink of time in the universe, and since we've only been around 100,000 years or so (humans), life is pretty new phenomena. Every creature or single celled organism in the universe, no matter how advanced, is simply a tadpole in the scope of history and future events. So there aren't likely time-space traveling aliens...they're likely very far from us and yet not much farther ahead or behind us. Most life forms are isolated and not as advanced as us (we are fairly complex in relation to more primitive species).
To be so vain as to assume we are the only intelligent life in the universe is to ignore all statistical liklihood to the contrary. You do not properly grasp the immense nature of the universe if you think it is likely we are the only intelligent life in it. We may never contact these other intelligent beings, but rest assured they exist.
And yes, we and they are "flukes of nature". That's what statistical rarities are. Nature will have all probable outcomes over infinite trials...no matter how low the probability of an occurence is. Over infinite trials it will alse occur more than once.
All life forms reproduce and there are several methods. That's pretty universal for life forms. That's not anything but proof of evolution. We reproduce sexually because it's superior in terms of immune systems to asexual reproduction. I don't see any magic there. The miracle of pregnancy perhaps? No more miraculous than eating food and turds coming out later on. Cause and effect...simple science.
Too many flaws in science you said...as if it's flaws compare remotely to the flaws of MYTHOLOGY in explaining the universe. Science is flawed...by definition! It's not the claim of truth and all knowing all powerful BS, it's the claim that you can never know everything but in attempting to learn everything you can define your theories according to LOGIC and REASON to come up with the best educated guess at things like Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, etc. It's an admission that they will alwayd have a flawed story, but the best rational story....unlike religion. Religion is oversimplistic, ancient, and honestly pretty corny.
Ever hear of doctors "practicing medicine"? Lawyers "practicing law"? The scientist attempting to "prove his theory"? These examples show how they outright admit to you they are making the best educated guesses given their expertise and the evidence. No one perfects law or medicine. No one proves a truth, they prove a theory. Theories are facts, but when no man has ever been able to prove reality (a debate that goes back to pre-Socratic philosophy and continues today; Einstein didn't believe reality necessarily existed beyond human perception for instance), facts are slippery things. Don't look for absolute knowledge when none can be attained...look for the best answers given logic and reason (or the best statistical gamble/investment/chance to win).
What made Earth different from other planets in our solar system is the random chance that we're located where we are in terms of distance from the sun, that another planet likely collided with us which gave us the elemental building blocks for simple life forms, and that those life forms evolved into us and all other life we have today while the remains of the planet that hit us became the moon. That's about it. The water and stuff came from the atmosphere created by gases released by the decomposing remains of the first simple life forms on this planet.
BTW, they already found fossilized microbial life (bacteria I believe) on Mars (via a probe). That's life on another planet, proved, signed, sealed, delivered.
My dog shows emotions. If you doubt this buy a dog. A lot of animals show emotions, mourn death, etc. How silly to think only humans feel empathicly...lol. We are not the only creature with emotions. We may be the only one on Earth with this high a function in brain power, but even that is fairly primitive still and it doesn't discount random evolution. Someone has to be that random creature...why not you? Why was your cat born a cat and you born a human, when it could just as easily been the other way around? These are the nonsense questions your asking us.
@ wally;
Speak for yourself sir.lol
Were you not created,are you not intelligent? If we are so lucky to have been the only HIGHER FORMS of beings whithin many light years, (I believe we are out to 40 light years at present), then we should play and win the lottery weekly, and 99.5%, sometimes a 100% of us all know what happens when we play the lottery, so we are not that lucky,we are not coincidence, happenstance,or here by chance.
@ pro; Sir please break your post up, I doubt this will be read by many. Sometimes a lengthy post is necessary but yours I believe is over board.
Speaking of religion, funny thing I saw once at a museum. It was one of those there fake dinosaur things that's supposedly older than religion. I bet scientists created them fake skeletons, microwaved them to make them look way old and sent them back in time. All so that they could carbon date them just to debunk religion and make the earth seem much older than it is. - sarcasm
Better check your explanation on where the water on this planet comes from. No Fact or science to back up that assertion whatsoever.
Chad's post is popular because there's a fair amount of reason and sensibility in it. What exactly is the "message" of the Bible? That slavery is acceptable and endorsed by God? That misogyny is the correct way to go? That killing innocent children is okay? Because those are all very clearly in the Bible. You pick and choose, ignoring or pretending the abhorrent parts of the Bible don't exist. I simply reject the entire thing as fiction. Are there good lessons to be found in there? Yes there are -- but Christians don't abide by them (turn the other cheek, love your enemies, sell all that you have and give to the poor, pray in secret and in private, not in the public square). Jesus had good teachings, but sadly, he is ignored by his followers.
More importantly, is the Bible the inerrant word of the one true, all-powerful, all-knowing god or isn't it? Because there is no middle ground here. There cannot be. It's an all or nothing proposition. It was either inspired, written on the authority of, and approved by Almighty God, or it was written by primitive, misogynistic, slave-owning, goat-herding men. I contend that a god who advocates slavery, hates women, demands animal and human sacrifice, personally slaughters children by the thousands, and threatens an eternity of hellfire and torture if I don't "love" him but then says he wants us to have free will is not a god deserving of my worship.
Oh, and I also contend that this god is imaginary, just as much so as Thor, Zeus, Ra, and Athena.
Mopar, Science is only as accurate as the technology of the day allows it to be. 500yrs ago, "Science" believed the world was flat. Back around the turn of the 20th century "Science" believe that using leeches to drink your blood would cure illnesses.
"Science" has shown us the Big Bang Theory. The Beginning of Life. Did you know it was a European Priest who first brought forth that theory? That Hubble only proved it a few years later? The Big Bang Theory. Something from Nothing. Sounds like Genesis to me.
Most Christians accept the fact that the "Creation" story is just that. A story. Most also accept that the Bible as it is read today has been Interpreted and translated from other languages to the current.
Do you know the story of the "Giants" in the old testement? The Torah, which was originally translated from the Hebrew to the Greek has many mistranslations. One of them in the story of the Giants who inhabited early Judea. The Hebrew identifies them as the "Lost Ones" or the "Forgotten Ones". Not long ago an archealogical dig in Israel found evidence that Neanderthals and Modern Man once inhabited the area of Israel at the same time. Were the "Giants" or the "Lost Ones" spoken in the early Torah actually Neanderthals? Interesting idea.
Is this Proof? Of course not. But it would be fascinating to find out.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't, no proof will ever be enough.
@ Janine;
Amen to that sister!!
@ pro;
to be so vain as to assume we are the only intelligent life in the universe is to ignore all statistical liklihood to the contrary.
Really? Let us see these statistics. I believe it is the other way around, we are alone at the moment out of millions if not billions of stars. Please at least one of you back up what you say with source, and example. Never happens.
ProIndividual-3906907, that was a great read. I'm glad to see other like minded people on here.
There is a minority of very vocal Christians who do not accept this and insist everything in the Bible is extremely literal. They then go on to influence politics and thus we have an "us vs. them" mentality developing.
First "we" didn't descend from monkey bones or apes. Human ancestors came down though a human line. I'm sure there was a time when our ancestors looked a lot like monkeys or apes but we were still destine to be human and they were destine to be monkeys or apes. The family tree didn't go monkey, monkey, missing link, human or ape, ape, missing link, human, it went human, human, human, appearances not withstanding.
Second, "Just because bone boxes are marked with the name "Jesus" and the names of his brothers and sisters, as mentioned in the Bible, doesn't necessarily mean these are the actual biblical figures". Yes this is true, it could be Jesus Smith, or James O'Connor on the ossuarys. Most of the worlds Christian's would never allow any facts that would contradict the Jesus raising on the third day scenario, never! So what did those guys find. It could be Jesus's family, they didn't parish on the cross, they lived longer and could have been buried close to him in those tombs. Who knows? I know that Christians will never admit to that, so why ask them, to provoke controversy, of course. Too find the real answer you have to ask someone with a good scientific background, with experience in Israeli/Jewish archeology, and with no agenda; "And I just said good luck", to quote Bob Dylan. After the death of Christ his followers came to realize that His Teachings and His life's work would be with them always, they arose and changed the world. This might be the true meaning of the Resurrection.
The bible counterdicts it's self. It has a story that includes a talking donkey! Many of it's stories are just rehashed stories from older cultures, like Noah and the Ark is a retelling of a ancient Persian story. It even has the career of Joseph wrong in modern translations. Joseph was a stone mason not a carpenter.
Do you have any polling data to actually support that statement? Because what you're suggesting as fact here is that more than 50% of self-identifying Christians believe that the Bible's story of creation is fictional. I simply cannot accept that on face value.
I would love to see that assertion backed up, because my observation is vastly different. I don't post this as factual data, but I do THINK that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that the creation of man, Earth, and the universe actually happened by the mere exertion of God's will, and happened as described in Genesis. PLEASE prove me wrong. Then after that, explain how these same people can say that the Bible is the inerrant, holy word of an all-knowing god while also claiming the first story told in it is a complete fairy tale. I cannot reconcile this in my mind.
@Melinda comment 1.10 and several others:
Did you read the article or just the headline? The tomb they are exploring is NOT Jesus' tomb-- it is a tomb adjacent to the tomb they believe is Jesus'. In the article, they refer to it as "The Patio Tomb." The fish markings are on tombs nearby the tomb they believe hold the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, so your comment about the fish-markings being inaccurate for a tomb of Jesus, while spot on, completely misses the mark because you failed to comprehend the article. This is NOT Jesus' tomb. From the article:
See? Reading comprehension is your friend.
@wildjoe comment 1.11
Background radiation, speed of light constant, and measurable observation. Your move.
@ thinkfor;
Chads post is popular just as I said, because atheistS are voting him up, surely no true Christians are. God never promised anyone a rose garden here on earth, number one. God himself was not happy with all that was going in the world in the OT,why do you think he wiped most of it out and started over sir? God takes all life,and also gives life.Do you see people at "celebrations of life" holding it against him? Umm no.
Of course one questions why someones life might be cut short, even Jesus himself, questioned his Father in heaven.
We have evolved over time, I doubt God holds it against us that we do not literally bring lambs to the altar to slay them, or that we have women that spread his word. Why dont you take a close look at the ten commandments, which we all in society pretty much live by now, this is how God wants us to live, not like mysoginistic slave owners, or child killers.lol Use your head sir.
We are commanded not to kill, we are commanded to love our neighbor, we are commanded to be faithful, so how is mysoginy o.k with God? How long you are on this earth only God knows, no pun intended.
Then you sir are kidding yourself the Bible has much self replicating evidence that proves itself over time, this latest find is only the newest of many. Look into all the archeological finds of the bible that match scripture.
Simply loving God will not save you, so another fail, please educate yourself before you rant.
God can not hate, so major fail there. The "hellfire" you speak of is reserved for Satan,ie(the evil of the world), nooone has a clear definition of how nonbelievers will suffer,(neither do you)it could just be lights out and no eternity.
Yeh right.lol
He can not back up one thing he says,I ask him for these stats he talks of and he can not show them because they do not exist in his favor, only mine.
Wally,
It's not just Richard Dawkins (whom I disagree with on almost every subject except evolutionary biology) who has an issue with Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Francis S. Collins, who was the director of the Human Genome Project and is currently the director of the National Institutes of Health , has written a fantastic book called, "The Language of God" in which he explains his own reconciliation of science and faith. He argues that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. He also takes Creationism and ID to task as non-scientific theories.
I recommend this book to anyone, but especially to Christians who feel that to believe in evolution would require them to abandon their faith. Many atheists would have you believe this is necessary (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) however, it is my opinion, and the opinion of many scientists who have faith, that science and faith are not incompatible.
# thinkfor;
He is wrong, we believe God created heaven and earth end of story, if you believe that is fiction then you are surely not a true Christian.
We do not just omit the events of the OT , the point is that generations evolve away from ignorance and idol worship, The point I make also is to get the message of the bible more than spend time trying to prove if Moses talked to a burning bush, or a river turned to blood, if God says it is so then it is so, if you do not understand it, so be it go on with your life. Do not defile my whole religion because you have no true understanding of happeningS thousands of years ago.
Even God tells us not to try to prove things to nonbelievers, I only look into these things to gain knowledge. I would have just as much faith if not one find was found in these digs, but that is not the case, self replicating equals empirical evidence.
My word of God stands with facts, all atheistS have are opinions.
WORD!!!!
Coral Taxi...
You are wrong about the level of similarity between chimps and humans via a DNA hybridization analysis. You are using a classic misrepresentation of the day that ID and Creationism supporters have used for a few years now that is based on a misquoted article.
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/chimphumanproteins.htm
The facts stacked against creationism and ID are so vast that rather than argue point by point against them its just easier to call the concepts stupid. They no longer deserve anymore credit than that. Additionally, if your religion cannot survive in your mind without the portions that are so obviously mythology created via the minds of poorly educated tribal humans from 10000 years ago then you need to study your religion more or move to a new one.
Coral Taxi...
Here is a simple site to get you started understanding evolution from the science point of view rather than the babble of misinformation that you will get from a church point of view. It really is a subject that is no longer up for replacement en masse. It's all fine tuning the theory via the scientific method from here on. Keep in mind that scientific theories are stronger than religious theories because they are open for fine tuning and debate whereas religions are not. Hence the reason supporters like the ones in this forum say things like either you believe or you don't. Religions have to fight for your blind belief because they don't survive otherwise... which is proven by the long history of religions that have disappeared when their followers are killed off. Scientific facts and theories could care less if you believe... they survive regardless.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Sir I have been studying evolution for quite some time, and have been arguing it for almost 3 yrs. You assume my POV comes from a church? lol I create my pown POV thank you very much. How pompous and patronizing of you, get me "started on the science of evolution"? You are funny
Very Good,but not good enough,I have not used this article for quite a while,( thought twice about it) but this is not the first challenge to it. I do know about the misquote, but it still gets the point across, from earlier studies.
Now I will give you information why your information is misleading. Can you say Genomes?lol
I pulled the Genome card on the others also, but you are obviously on top of your game to know this about my previous post.
We will have berkely vs berkely.lol
Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.
Good try but fail, I was ready for you to come along.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038
Just a little more for ya;
You see old blue,nor pro,chad, came back and backed their rhetoric up. Know why? Because they do not hold a drop of water, just drivel for the athiestS to wrongly support. The funny thing is I back up all I say, or at least try to with facts, and correct statements. The atheistS just ignore the facts I lay in front of them, and support anything that seems to disprove creationism.
This has become so typical in my debates of evolution, that they are predictable. AtheistS seem to be the true close minded bias ones. At least I am willing to look at the scientific side, while they are never ready to appreciate the spiritual side. Just dismiiss it,and insult it to no end.
With this statement you drive the point of my above post 1;64, home. We are unearthing artifacts by the day that match scripture, you guys are in denial, see you offer insult, I offer facts. Instead of saying that is interesting,or I did not know that, it is "all they have are shovels and bibles", very ignorant close minded statement, and very wrong also.
Thought better of you until I saw this post from earlier.
Coral Taxi... I knew well in advance that you would use the apologetic press as your source material. All you did...literally all you did was Google this stuff right after you read my reply to you. That was the first item that came up in the google list. The point is very good at supporting my argument of similarity. 1 - 2 percent difference of a large number is still a tiny difference even when the number is vast.
Let's be clear that all of the facts point to the supporting of evolution and your basis for your belief structure is just that... Belief. You say above that "My word of God stands with facts...". Let's hear one is single fact that supports the existence of your God?! I find it patently ridiculous that would would split hairs over obscure facts of evolution and claim to have studied it for thirty years yet you are just fine with all of the contradictions in your creationist viewpoint. I.e. all geological evidence pointing to a multi-billion year history of Earth, a fossil record proving creationism wrong, a vast genetic record proving you wrong, etc.
I could believe a magic tin can created the universe and you would have just as much evidence for you god as I do. A two thousand year book of mythology is no basis a system of life choices.
And let's use source material more respectable than the Apologetic Press. Seriously...the apologetic press...surely they aren't biased. Next you will quoting the Discovery Center.
And by the way.. Those other didn't stop replying because your vast intellect intimidated them away... It's because they realized you had no interest in facts and you clearly won't accept a difference of opinion.
@ st miller; Ummno,Ive known about the genomes argument for quite some time and just re posted the article I knew existed. And the others can not back up anything I debunked all three of their posts as wrong with facts,and example.
Your emotions are allowing your eyes to play tricks on you, I said 3 yrs not 30.lol You are just backpedaling,and it is splitting hairs,my argument is not to prove the existence of God, it is to show we did not come from apes. Get a clue sir
You see 3 not 30, and thise other guys got burned. Period!
You are focusing on error of me misreading your post. That's hardly the issue.
When you feel like you have (note I say 'feel') successfully contradicted someone's argument you get all puffy and keep pointing it out, but you don't answer any of my points. I pointed out that you clearly stated that your belief in God is based on facts, but you don't support it. All of a sudden you call that splitting hairs. I am not backpedaling I am merely pointing out that you do a very classic ID/creationism supporter thing which is to demand facts from the evolutionist, but don't feel as though you require any for your point of view.
You will sit around all day and try and say that evolution isn't true because they can't yet explain X, but you don't feel it necessary to support your side with any facts at all.
i.e.
Where is the proof for a 10,000 year old Earth?
Where is the proof for your creator?
Where is the proof for Adam and Eve?
Where is the proof for the poof...7 days of creation?
How do you explain the simple proofs of the geological record, genetic record, etc.
A simple proof of evolution is available in nearly every pet store in America. Miniatures. We're talking tea-cup poodles, mini-dachshunds, chihuahuas, pomeranians, etc. Now, at no time on earth were there ever "wild poodles of the Serengeti" licking their chops after feasting on their freshly killed gazelle. Dachshunds never roamed wild in the ancient forests of Germany. These animals were bred for their characteristics from domesticated wolves starting around 20,000 years ago. In that brief span of time (from a geological perspective) we selectively bred characteristics into these animals, effectively making them more docile and better suited to certain tasks. Reflect, if you will, that a tea-cup poodle is genetically related to the bull mastiff. Both animals have a common ancestor in the wolf. They have come to their current state after centuries of human interference in their breeding, resulting in a set of traits that we essentially specified. Tiny tea-cup poodle for fashionista's purses, and massive bull-mastiff's for hunting and security. Now, the process that created these animals (selective breeding to achieve specific traits) occurs naturally as a byproduct of environmental stresses. Over a long enough time frame, and a large enough habitat to allow for a variety of environmental conditions, and you have a recipe for diversity of living organisms. i.e. evolution. We created a veritable panoply of designer dogs from wild wolves in just under 20,000 years. Imagine, if you will, what several hundred million years will accomplish.
Thank you, that is all.
@ stmiller
You severely miss the point. I am pointing out that my bible is being substantiated by empirical(self replicating) evidence, not that this proves the existence of God.
Sometimes it is necessary to drive apoint home. I would say I feel satisfaction in winning a point,or "debate" not pride, or becoming puffed up,as I have been put in my place plenty.Then it is on to the next one. I also learn from the ones I am debating, and it forces me to study things in detail.
My scripture is supported now with more evidence of its happenings than your THEORY of evolution. This you can not deny. More is being found daily. The same can not be said for intermediary fossils, or connections to apes,that theory as I have shown above is actually being diminished.
Does this prove Gods existence? Of course not. Proof is not needed for that as far as I am concerned.
Umm yes you are.lol My POV is that we do not come from apes. I have given reason, and articles why this would not be so. Do not tell me I do not feel I need to prove anything as in most of my post I give example, and source to back up what I have said. What have you given me to prove evolutiion,absolutely noithing, because then you would be awarded the Nobel prize,no doubt.lol
I am focusing on the fact that you are in such a huff to prove me wrong or catch a mistake I make, that your eyes are decieving you.
You are not the first to do this to me, and surely will not be the last, as I tend to stir emotions in people because I bring perspective they do not wish to accept, but know they can not disprove. Then the digression starts, the insults start. It is almost a textbook reaction that I can count on happening. Shows me that I have struck a nerve, and have caused a stirring of emotions.
You are on it sir.lol
The simple fact that you are here shows you were created, so you must have a creator.
We had to of started from someone, and I am sure it was not Adam and Steve sir.lol or Cheetah.lol
We are not taking Sundays off for nothing sir, we work six days and rest on the seventh,why? Because the bible tells us so.lol
?? What genetic record? Like pro and old blue you will not come up with one.(Do not use wiki or I am done) What geological record?? lol Please show me do not tell me. Anytime someones uses ETC, shows they are reaching at straws. Like this for example from pro.
The water and stuff? What stuff? lol. etc etc.lol
@ wmg;
There goes the etc, again yada yada yada.lol Sir this is called cross breeding and is caused by humans. A better thing for you to study to back up the point you are trying to make is called "forced evolution" .
I would call this adaption more than evolution,in the sense that we are talking about evolution. When has this byproduct naturally occured? What are the environmental stresses, volcanoes? Electric storms etc etc,etc,etc.lol just kidding stmiller do not jump on it.lol
But really give me one example of this "byproduct" Ligers maybe?lol
Coral Taxi -
Let me rephrase my questions since you either didn't understand them or choose to play the word game:
Where is the proof for a 10,000 year old Earth? This one means...show me the proof that the Earth is as young as the bible says that it is. StMiller living on the Earth is not proof that it is only 10,000 years old.
Where is the proof for your creator? Means...show me the proof that there is a creator as defined in the bible. Show me the proof that a creator has to even exist? There is no "empirical" evidence that supports the existence or necessity for a creator. Just because science doesn't have the full scope of the method of matter creation it does not instantly mean that a creator god did it.
Where is the proof for the poof...7 days of creation? - I love your answer to this one..."Hey StMiller...we have a 7 day workweek and take sundays off therefore that proves that God created the world in 7 days." HAHA!! Thats like saying..."Hey look StMiller...there is a statue of Ganesha therefore that God must exist."
Just because you choose not to accept the clear physical evidence shown in the fossil record via radiometric dating which can date materials back to 40+ billion years. This method was used as early as the 1920's. Additionally, the method can be used with multiple pairs of isotopes that have all corroborated the age evidence of the others. This geologically embedded record is indisputable. It has been used to both prove and predict evolution. The tired concept of the missing links in fossil records has been explained to creationists for over 100 years but while they understand surely (they aren't that dumb) they choose to ignore it.
Coral Taxi - I know you're not dumb...I know you can understand the facts, but I also know that you are just choosing to ignore them. Additionally, let's assume for one second that evolution isn't accurate...that does not mean that you instantly get to leap to God created universe. Like I said before...you have no more proof that God created the universe than my foot did.
"I am pointing out that my bible is being substantiated by empirical..." Not true...historians have never denied that certain pieces of the bible record historical events and people. What they do say is that even though there might have been a guy named Jesus (not actually proved) that does not mean that he was the son of a god or that he walked on water or that he raised the dead, etc. Let's rattle off a few that you literally have no chance of ever getting physical "empirical (self-replicating)" evidence for...a multi-hundred year old Noah, a large wooden ark that could carry 2 of ever animal, a resurrected human, a Red Sea parted by a man, etc.
Quite honestly, I do hope they find the bones of a prophet named Jesus. At least it would finally close the book on the silly resurrection concept.
Chad.. The incompatibility between science and religion are an artifact of mostly the early Catholic church and scientists of the day. There is no reason that religion and science have to oppose each other, as each fills a different void in the lives of mankind.
As far as the find, Perhaps it is a fish, which wouldn't be that earth shattering to think that someone of the area wanted a fish in his/her tomb.
Even if it was put there by someone who was a follower of Christ that's not that earth shattering as the area has had followers for centuries, so it would not be that shattering to find a follower's tomb.
Proving it was a tomb of Jesus' family members is almost impossible with current findings but such findings are still of archaeological interest.
I disagree that a professional archaeologist would not if given some credible evidence search for a treasure just because it was Biblical in nature. An antiquity is an antiquity and knowledge about religious beliefs in the past transcends whether it is about Christianity, Egypt, or the Aztecs. Many searches in S. America have centered around religious findings and quite a few findings stemmed from mention in various religious ceremonies.
Making religion compatible with science would force them to change their understanding of religion--for example, any miracles that were indeed observed must have been some kinda magic trick. Any display of power could be attributed to alien technology or even physiology. The list goes on, but the bottom line is that there's no such thing as the supernatural--only undiscovered science.
Geneticist Gregor Mendel was a Catholic priest. Many other scientists in history have religious. Clearly, for some, science and religion are NOT incompatible.
I agree that there does not have to be an incompatibility between science and Christianity. The supernatural can exist alongside the natural. The Bible rarely refutes anything proven by science when put under scrutiny. The incompatibility exists only on the minds of those whom insist on reading into the Bible things that are not there. The Bible does not say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old for example. The date is "thought" to exist because of the Genealogies in Genesis and Mathew (which differ from each other BTW). It is the insistence on inerrancy and literal translations without respect to context and culture that brings this belief system into being.
Wasn't resurrection of Jesus about apirituality rather than a physical one? @Carrl - When Chad goes and meets Jesus, I am sure Jesus will be saying "Welcome Son" and not what you have mentioned.
I beleive that God (call him/her in any name) is a forgiving, caring symbol of love.
@ Y2SJ
According to the Bible the resurrection of Jesus was both physical and spiritual.
Clarify for me the physical part, when Jesus appeared he was not even recognized by his followers. Surely he
did not ascend to Heaven in a physical sense?
There was a time in our history when men of faith performed science as a way of knowing God by understanding how the universe and world works. It was an intellectual exploration that strengthened the faith of those performing the research.
There is no test of faith to perform science. There is a method of doing research. As long as you adhere to the method, you are doing science, no matter what you believe. Science and religion are only incompatible when compared to each other. When scientists attack religion as though it were a branch of science and religious believers attack science as though it were a religion do we have issues. It's like comparing knitting to economics.
Science that is motivated by religious belief just isn't doing science. All that brainwashing only results in a distorted mindset. You can't be completely objective which real science demands. Even scientists with no religious motive fall victim to tainted objectivity with the promise of such things as sound funding. Take a look at the pharmaceutical industry. Who's pulling the "scientific strings" there?
@frespech
According to the Bible Jesus's body did physically rise from the dead. Hence the empty tomb and appearing to the disciples full of holes. Certain disciples I.E. Doubting Thomas did not believe that he was resurrected until he saw Jesus in his physical body. There ARE passages where followers did not immediately recognize him. I believe Mary Magdalene first mistook him as a gardener if I recall correctly. The common christian teaching is that Jesus's body was substantially transformed after the resurrection. Apparently it was changed enough that he was not recognizable at a glance. I don't believe the Bible literally states this assertion but that is the teaching.
It's not clear whether Jesus's physically ascended into heaven. Different Christians believe different things. Bascially, 1. Yes he physically ascended into heaven. 2. His physical body disappeared and he spiritually ascended into heaven. Or 3. He transformed into a supernatural being that contained both the spiritual and physical without having the limitations of either.
This is why finding the body of Jesus would be very threatening to many Christians.
To Mo-Pho:
The motivation to do science does not necessarily taint the result. There is no possibly way for a human being to be completely objective, thusly, if your argument was correct then we could not trust any science at all. When Intelligent Design proponents allow religion to taint their result they are wrong. When Newton was motivated by Christianity to become the greatest scientist of all time it didn't make calculus incorrect.
Mo-Pho,
As I mentioned below, when you begin research with your mind made up on what the result is going to be, you'll find that you often get that result. That doesn't make you a scientist though. You can have religious motivations in your science so long as your religious beliefs haven't already made up your mind on what the outcome is going to be. Many great scientists had religious motivation such as Newton, Galileo, and Pasteur and their work was top-notch.
noah,
Intelligent Design proponents' mistake is not that they permit religion to taint their objectiveness. I've met an areligious intelligent design proponent. He was an engineer and argued from a very logical standpoint about complexity. The problem with intelligent design is in the claim itself. Examining any piece of evidence could be argued to be part of a design, hence there is no way to ever disprove intelligent design. It can't be wrong under any proposed situation, real or hypothetical. Every scientific statement is made with the disclaimer that it can be wrong in certain situations. That is what makes intelligent design not a scientific study.
I disagree. Intelligent design as I understand it has to do with a particular design, namely self-sustaining life. We've seen symetrical, geometric designs such as snowflakes created "automatically", with no obvious guiding intellgence, yet the spotaneous formation of the "pre-biotic soup" elements into self-sustaining, self-replicating organisms has to my knowledge never been observed. Since no-one's seen the process in action, it must be taken as a matter of faith.
By the same token, if robots were to suddenly drop down on Earth from outer space, the first question on everybody's mind would be "Who built them?" And if said robots claimed that no intelligence built them, that they came to be spontaneously, I expect even atheists would cock an eyebrow in disbelief. Because to the best of our knowledge, nothing as complicated as an autonomous machine came into being until some intelligence decided to build it.
I see now, it's a Grecian urn balancing on a walnut. I didn't realize the little round thing was at the bottom before
the "vase" looks like ovaries and a cervix
I thought the same, Derpy the 2nd. I looked at it twice and thought I was looking at a uterus, ovaries, and cervix. At the bottom could be a woman's genitalia and the sphincter muscle. I am glad someone else saw the same.
Maybe they found a tomb where the lovely ladies of a brothel were buried?
Maybe it's a fish tower thing?
Enemies of Christianity would have produced this long before the scriptures. This is the work of the same devil that has been around since the beginning of time as we understand it. Man prides himself on his advances more now than ever, but those of us who understand things of the spirit also know that such a spiritual being is infinitely more intelligent and crafty than mortal man can possible ever imagine. It's fascinating and horrifying at the same time to observe how cleverly he has convinced much of the world that, not only is he a myth, but God and his Son Jesus are too. If the devil hates God and his creation with 'every fiber of his being' and his sole purpose is to claim as many of God's beloved as possible, what better way to do so than to make each and every one completely unaware that is exactly what everything in this world that leads us away from Christ
into death without salvation is really by satanic design. I believe we are in the great falling away which was prophesied long ago, and these men are doing nothing more than advance the religion of atheism, winning more souls for the enemy of God. I've experience the depths of Jesus Christ. I sought the truth in many
places, but it wasn't until I submitted to Christ that I found the Answer. All I had to do was ask...and I received. Not in my time. In God's time. When the answers came, they came in such a way that there was no way to doubt where they came from. I've experienced physical and metaphysical outpourings of God presence, and there is nothing that compares. Nothing. No man-made substance on earth can cause what happened in me, and the same thing has happened in millions more. It happens every day in local churches around the globe. If you want him to, God will prove himself the Holiest of Holies, and I'm not alone in believing the time is coming when he will cast down all earthly kings from their thrones. If it be December 2012, then it can't come soon enough. Harold Camping isn't going to predict the time or day any better than the Mayans, but whatever day, whatever time, the world will likely still not believe it when it is right in their face. As for me and mine? We will serve Christ the Lord, and recognize these things for what they are. You can poke fun at this post all you want. I pray God's blessings on you regardless, that that He would make Himself known to you. Just realize who's will it is that you serve. All of life's questions are answered easily depending on where your faith lies.
Since you understand so much, perhaps you can explain why a god that exists outside of time can't see what my final life choices are regarding religion on my deathbed.
Free will is not a valid argument, by the way, as it doesn't matter what choices I make, "God" is either omnipotent, as christians claim, or not. There is no in between.
Or, if that is too difficult for you, just try explaining why "God" is going to spit in your face and piss on your prayers by NOT proving himself to exist at all.
Or perhaps you would prefer trying to rationalize THIS:
A young woman is brutally raped and murdered. Because she is an intelligent young woman, she is an atheist. Because of this, according to your nauseating religion, she goes to hell. But the rapist, who converts to christianity in prison, repents, and accepts christ goes to heaven.
Those are the rules according to christianity. Don't try to change them, just explain how the above scenario makes "god" good, and why anyone who could think for themselves would ever consider worshipping such an evil being.
It makes God good because it displays of his mercy and compassion for the rapist who see's the error in his ways and seeks forgiveness (when people and society would reject him). but the young intelligent woman is "too smart" for God and does not need him. God hates pride (to think that your ok on your own and that your soul doesn't need salvation, that you don't need forgiveness of sins), not intelligence.God extends mercy and Grace to those who understand that their a sinner and want a change of heart, a new nature. which is only given by faith in Jesus Christ.
In other words "God" is a scum sucking f*ck who is obsessed with being worshipped and idolized, and is willing to exact any amount of evil and suffering to get what he wants.
Nice.
Have fun living in heaven with a bunch of apologetic rapists and child molesters. FOREVER.
:D
It makes your god into yet another sky fairy that the rest of us have to deal with in the real world.
According to your book, your insecure little god:
Yea, cant wait to spend eternity with that psychopath...yea baby!
Listening to christians is a little like sitting next to someone on a plane that's throwing up. They just cant keep it to themselves.
I'll concede that at least the christians are amusing, particularly when they demonstrate their ignorance of their own book based religion.
All of life's questions are answered easily depending on where your faith lies.
Ah yes the quest for meaning and purpose! Religion removes this search and replaces it with archaic "truths". It is much easier for someone to live life by the scriptures than it is for them to be a thinking, independent individual. There is no answers. The only meaning is what you make of it. There is no greater meaning to be found! Your very existence is pointless. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that you are a beautiful and unique snowflake that was put on this Earth by some magic being. We are not special, but we are not trash either. We just are. What happens just happens.
Two things we can all count on in life; we are born & we die. All that really matters is what we do in-between and what we leave behind. Religion and gods were came to be so the few could control the masses through ignorance & fear.
I don't think too many will have to worry about spending eternity with a God they despise so!
Well, we all have our opinions, based on our experiences or lack of experience. AND UPON MY EXPERIENCE, GOD IS REAL AND GOD LOVES YOU MORE THAN ANY PERSON COULD LOVE YOU. I don't necessarily believe in the Bible, but I had an experience of the presence of what I believe to be God around me. Believe what you want call me crazy, that is your understanding from your experience. But during meditative prayer of thanksgiving to God, a true thanksgiving, more thankful then I have ever been, I felt an experience over my body, that started from my feet and rose to my head, and engulfed my body. It lasted maybe a few minutes, but during those minutes, I had perfect peace and all understanding. All the questions about life, the pain, the worries, I knew all things at that moment and knew why or understood everything. It was as if God touched me and varified His existence, was it just me, I doubted, if it was me, it allows me to believe we have alot more power then we realize within us. It reminds me of some death experiences, who claim they saw God, and said in His presence you can feel His unconditional love for you, you have a perfect peace and a knowledge of all things (that we need to know I guess). But this really happened about 9-10 years ago and it hasn't happened since, but I try to use this as a reference to try to live in that understanding, not worrying about all things we worry about in life, like money and bills, because I understood that it's not all that important to the big picture.
Well I went further than I thought I would in these responses to find a religious zealot who has BEEN SAVED BY JESUS!!!! One only has to look at the mind-set and the social and physical environment a person who "opened my heart to Jesus/God" was experiencing at the time. I have seen more than one person who uses this as a crutch to get through a personal crises, only to discard this belief later. Such hypocracy.
I'm unconvinced that there have ever been any actual gods. Even if they were powerful and capable of doing things ancient humans couldn't understand, it doesn't make them gods. They could just as easily have been aliens.
All this is assuming that religion wasn't invented to control the masses, of course--and that's a huge assumption to make.
MegaDon: I don't doubt that you had a powerful experience, and I don't pretend to interpret it. But as far as the god of the Bible being one of unconditional love--the Bible constantly repeats its conditions for its god's love. I suppose one could say that even if the god of the Bible condemns someone to the hell mentioned in the Bible, that he still loves that person, but that's stretching the definition of love to one I don't find very useful or comforting.
BDan804643
"All of lifes questions are answered easily"
I, and many others, do not consider "god did it" a viable, or even comprensible, answer to Anything.
Any objective evaluation of the posts left by those who belittle God here make very clear what is in their hearts, nevermind what they claim is in their "intellects."
They are clearly full of anger and hatred and are, by comparison to posts left in these forums on any other topic, the embodiment of evil. That they are also extremely childish in no way mitigates this first observation.
That's what I see.
You can deny the spiritual and miraculous all you want, but you exhibit it every time you excercise your free will and move the particles of the universe thereby.
All of your attempts to deny the existence of free will fly in the face of common experience to believe a circular argument that has not one shred of empirical evidence to justify it.
And those who deny the existence of free will are among the most illogically judgmental and intolerant in the light of that obvious lie, too, since they are also the first to give THEMSELVES credit for being superior to others and to BLAME those who don't see the monster in the shadows that they themselves are so sure lurks behind the teachings of a Loving Savior.
For the anti-religious bigots on this thread who mock, deride, and ridicule believers:
You’ve got to wonder where all the laws of physics and mathematics, which govern the universe, came from in the first place. Those laws had to predate every material substance and every associated process that brought the universe into existence and made it what it is today. In addition, those laws are so complex that scientists have been studying them for millennia, but still don’t fully comprehend them. I think that’s where a spiritual Supreme Being (God) comes into play, because some sort of incredibly intelligent mind had to create the laws that govern our universe. And those laws did not evolve; they apply to the past just as they apply to the present and will apply to the future because without this belief, science would be impossible. So where did these laws come from? Did they just pop out of thin air? The atheists and secular scientists have no adequate explanation. Instead, they choose to believe that NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING? How reasonable is that? That notion is more ludicrous than any belief in God.
The most plausible explanation for the existence of the laws of physics and mathematics is that they originated from an incomprehensibly intelligent Creator, a spiritual being we call God. In fact, here's what Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said about the topic: "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle." Long before that, Galileo opined the following about mathematics: "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe."
Finally, God’s existence is clearly indicated by an honest examination of the Argument from Design, two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis, clues from the Fossil Record, the Existence of Conscience, and the Wisdom of the Ages. Louis Pasteur, a scientific icon, summed up my point succinctly when he quipped, “A little bit of science averts people from God, a lot of it takes us back to Him.”
But the bible doesn't speak of the universe or other planets, things that ACTUALLY exist. So how can you believe in them in god doesn't say so? Of course, everyone who isn't of your religion is the embodiment of evil. "All the attempts to deny the existence of free will"? Um, you mean that one comment? Free will is what everyone does every day. And monsters in the shadows? Do you work for the Catholic church? You'll still be ranting this nonsense when you're in diapers again, I'm sure.
I, too, used to be skeptical about the existence of God until I read some stunning news about Professor Anthony Flew, a world-class atheist philosopher who renounced his atheism in 2004 and proclaimed (in so many words) that the existence of God is REQUIRED to explain the universe and all the natural wonders in it. That transformation is comparable to Bill Maher announcing that he will become a Catholic priest. So, I wondered what Anthony Flew found out that was so momentous; in other words, what discovery moved Mr. Flew to change his belief from one “extreme” (atheism) to the other (theism)?
When I investigated this a little further, I learned that advancements in science, ESPECIALLY REGARDING DNA, were primarily what swayed Mr. Flew towards his new-found belief in a deity. Here’s what Mr. Flew declared: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms…What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
Spurred on by Mr. Flew’s intriguing testimony, I began to read more about DNA and found some interesting facts I hadn’t known before. But first, it’s important to understand that all instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. That being said, in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It’s a full instruction manual.
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that actively supervise in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop. Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instructions, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
In a related, thought-provoking comment, Charles B. Thaxton (who holds a PhD in Chemistry and is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University) wrote that “…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.”
In every day terms, if the chemical formula for a drug that cures cancer is written down one day, all the authorities would join forces to identify the discoverers and even give them an award. Nobody would wonder if that formula was the result of ink being spilled on the page. Any rational mind would think that it could only have been written by someone with expertise in chemistry, physiology, oncology (the branch of medicine that studies cancer) and pharmacology (the branch that studies drugs). So, why doesn’t the same common sense logic apply to the DNA message in our cells, i.e. the source of the message is an intelligent being (God)?
In addition, Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and a renowned former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of his admiration for the controlling laws of physics. In Mr. Tipler’s own words, "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” ( Note: Tipler’s latest book is called, The Physics Of Christianity.)
Finally, I wouldn’t get caught up in all the squabbling about the true meaning of specific passages in the Bible or the resulting nit-picking debates that usually don’t get resolved anyway. Some of those debates are like arguing about the difference between the words “farther” and “further”…who cares? I doubt that Anthony Flew or Frank Tipler ever got bogged down in such heated quarrels, which often become dead-end streets or avenues of distraction from what’s really important. Do what Anthony Flew and Frank Tipler did, i.e. look at a plethora of emerging scientific facts. Many of those facts (which I alluded to in an earlier comment) point to the existence of God. That’s what motivated me to become a believer.
Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and a renowned former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of his admiration for the controlling laws of physics. In Mr. Tipler’s own words, "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” ( Note: Tipler’s latest book is called, The Physics Of Christianity.
Rhonda Lucky-296458
For the anti-religious bigots on this thread who mock, deride, and ridicule believers:
-------------------------------------------------------
It's pretty easy to do and it's our way of making you think about the crazy things you claim. Bring some evidence, or a reasonable hypothesis to the argument next time. Stating a god must have written the laws of the universe because you don't understand them is not a valid argument. It just shows you ignorance.
And to Rhonda. If DNA is so hard to create imagine how hard it is to create a universe creating god. A strand of DNA vs an entity that can create uncountable galaxies with uncountable stars, planets and moons in each.
Trevor-1973:
Maybe your reading comprehension skills are a bit underdeveloped, but I already did list several clues for God's existence. Very briefly, the God of the gaps is also the God of the facts, i.e. intelligent design REQUIRES an intelligent designer; the universe REQUIRES a cause; all life comes from other life; the fossil record contradicts evolution; and morals and conscience can’t evolve from pond slime. Those are the FACTS!
Chickfrom Ga:
If your comment was addressed to me, you need to clarify it because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Rhonda Lucky - Aren't you equally bigoted for mocking, deriding and ridiculing those who question the existence of a god? That's what is so great about you "believers"...you are so holier-than-thou that you can't even see that you are judging others when you infer that they are judging you.
BTW, you are wasting your time writing your little dissertation posted above. No one is going to read a post that is that long.
Ummmmmmmm, errrrrrrrrrrr.................what are you implying here, anyway? That a woman who is raped or a guy is robbed at gunpoint and demands that justice be done to the perpetrator is "not smart enough" for God, then? Really? Because if that were true, then that would make heaven a pretty stupid place.
AtticusRules:
YOU WROTE: "...you are wasting your time writing your little dissertation posted above. No one is going to read a post that is that long."
MY RESPONSE: Thats's funny because another author above you asked for evidence to back up my belief in God. So, when I try to explain my point of view in more detail, skeptics like you don't want an explanation if it's going to be long. But complicated issues usually require long explanations. Just ask any researcher.
So, let me offer this as an alternative: God really exists! There, is that short enough to resolve your complaint?
ID has been debunked as an attempt to wrap science around religion.
No it doesn't
your point?
False.
It's okay no woman is welcome into heaven anyway. It's a man's club.
@stonedog34
I will briefly attempt to answer a few of your questions. I am agnostic and certainly NOT a christian. However, I know a great deal about the Bible and Christianity.
1. "Explain why a god that exists outside of time can't see what my final life choices are regarding religion on my deathbed."
I will say that this is not a settled matter in the christian church and there are many schools of thought. I will present one. God DOES know every action that you will choose. Including your end of life stance on religion and acceptance of him. This does not exclude free will because simply knowing the outcome does not cause the outcome to happen. That's all on you. This is a very long argument and there are many positions. It get's into Calvinism vs Arminianism, predestination, free will, election, ect...
2. Or, if that is too difficult for you, just try explaining why "God" is going to spit in your face and piss on your prayers by NOT proving himself to exist at all.
This isn't a question. It's a statement. Proof of God can be held just in observation of the natural. Some claim supernatural experiences. I have not had a supernatural experience, and I am skeptical of those that have, but it does not prove their experience false.
3. "A young woman is brutally raped and murdered. Because she is an Intelligent young woman, she is an atheist. Because of this, according to your nauseating religion, she goes to hell. But the rapist, who converts to christianity in prison, repents, and accepts christ goes to heaven."
According to Christianity, An intelligent young woman whom is truly an atheist would indeed go to hell upon her death. She made a conscious choice in her beliefs.
The rapist / murderer would indeed go to heaven in your scenario if he truly repents. He saw the wrong in his actions and has forever changed his life and belief system. He will also be judged and held to justice on earthly matters. This does not excuse what he did in the past. It only provides a future of righteousness. So you see, the mans earthly crimes were punished on earth. He was forgiven by God for choosing to follow a righteous path. The woman CHOSE not to follow a righteous path. Because of their choices each will be judged and saved accordingly.
I believe in "free will." I'm exercising mine right now writing these very words after five in the morning. Galileo discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that we're not the center of the universe, not by a voice in his head, but rather through careful observation. It lead to further research hundreds of years later, even at the risk of being tried as a heritic by his own people barely escaped a brutial execution and instead was imprisioned at home for the rest of his life, never to speak to another person. Darwin was said to be a Christian, but discovered through years of research that the Earth is a lot older than the Bible says and everything evolves and is still evolving. As for the Fossil Record, Christians claimed the first dinosaur fossils being placed there by the Devil. Today, the Creationists insist that man and dinosaurs co-exisisted until the Great Flood. Einstein was Jewish, but he spent most of his time doing his research and having a personal life, not going to Temple every Saturday. What do they have in common? They were raised religiously but weren't manipulated by their faith to quit thinking outside the established line.
Science is an evolution of studies, theories and discoveries, from the very simple to the very complex to explain the very life we live in. Science as we know it is only been around for maybe two thousand years at the very most and the greatest minds were either revered or feared by their people because it contradicts, not conforms with everything they think they know. The priests hate those that can think because they usurp their power by giving people answers that actually moves outside of the black and white world they were raised in. However, religious groups, like the Christians have evolved over the last few decades to include science to explain their myths and in hopes to legally place in todays classrooms in hopes of getting a stronger following. Psychology have played a roll in how successful many religious organizations are as many of their leaders have a doctorate in the field. They'll find someone who's weak minded, empty and in pain or weaken one's self-esteem enough followed by what free will they have left and fullfill with their "truth" until they run out of questions or doubt. Create a church, a TV show, make up a few stories of miracles and you have a powerful, tax exempt business getting rich off the naive that writes checks to them. Mathematics, a man made set of theories and paterns of numbers, means nothing when describing the universe as a whole. We'll never understand the universe unless we actually travel through it, which is far from our current abilities. Pi gives us no definitive answers knowing any number past "3.14", the rest are just a endless string of numbers and is about as much of a waist of time as looking for the tomb of a long dead deity.
Rhonda Lucky-Just wanted to say "Thank you", and I DID read all of your posts(so far). I usually don't like reading all the comments of the unbelievers because it makes me sick....I really feel sorry for those who have no hope in the afterlife. My question to them is, "What do you have to lose?".
It makes me sick to read all of the believers posts. I really feel sorry for those that can't open there eyes and discover the answers to many questions to our world. No science doesn't have an answer to everything. I think some people just have to have an answer with a "good ending to it". Grow some and realize that that's just the way things are.
AtticusRules- Rhonda Lucky was not in any way mocking, deriding or ridiculing those who question the existence of an Creator God....she was just stating facts. BTW...if her response was too long for you....perhaps another dose of Adderall would help. I was able to read the whole thing.
Rhonda,
The Argument from Design is a failed argument. Cause and Effect; failed argument. Both begin with an arbitrary assumption stating everything requires a designer or a cause. First of all, we don't know that to be the case, so you're making a giant supposition into a hard and fast rule.
Second and most importantly, everything includes god. The only way around that for believers is Special Pleading; magic; also a failed argument. It's either everything or it's not; there can't be an absolute and an exception in the same postulate.
It is ridiculous to imagine the 'laws of nature' came first. What we refer to as a law is simply the way the physical world behaves. We imposed the so-called rules on what we observed. It is also Circular Reasoning to invoke laws of science as a proof of god at the same time you say god is exempt from those laws and that science; failed argument.
A Gap is not a clue, just as OFF is not a TV channel. The absence of a solution to a problem is not corrected by inserting god. An unexplained phenomenon remains unexplained until it is explained. Saying a UFO is a spaceship from another world is the same kind of error. Until that UFO is identified, it remains UNIDENTIFIED; all else is pure speculation.
Quoting Pasture, Einstein, or whoever is yet another failed argument; the Argument from Authority. What a person says has ZERO bearing on the true nature of reality. Thomas Jefferson believed it was impossible that stone or iron meteors could fall from the sky. Newton spent decades practicing Alchemy trying to find the 'Philosopher's' stone. Jesus thought slavery was normal and that mental illness was caused by unclean spirits. Should we continue to rely on their authority in these matters?
Nothing from nothing is observed routinely in nature and in laboratories; in the Quantum Universe it is commonplace for particles to appear and disappear. In fact the 'Laws of Nature,' you claim were so perfectly engineered are seen to contradict one another when comparing large and small scale events or open and closed systems.
Case in point; the Second Law of Thermodynamics you champion, regarding the increase of Entropy; the effect applies only to closed systems. The Universe is not a closed system. Our solar system is not a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system; it gets energy from the sun and loses enegy in space. On those grand scales the balance of entropy is always maintained. Failed Argument.
I have no doubt these Bone Boxes are significant archeological finds, but Jacobovicki instantly blows his credibility by leaping to exaggerated conclusions. Science takes time. They award Noble Prizes ten, twenty years after the initial work. That is because one result doesn't make a case. Assertions must be tested repeatedly. The main thing a true scientist does is try to disprove his own theory.
I saw Jacobovicki on his TV show announce that he had proven the events of Exodus really happened because of a SINGLE word carved on a wall in Egypt. The word was, 'Hibiru, and he claims it proves the Hebrews spent 450 years in captivity in ancient Egypt. That is bad science.
He left out the fact there was a tribe called the Hibiru who are not related to the Jews. He left out the fact the word was in the middle of some text that had ZERO relation in contex to the alleged events of Exodus.
Assertions of the supernatural are put forward the same way. Claiming god circumvents his own laws and does things that leave no trace is impossible to disprove. It employs the same failed science as Von Daniken and Vilikovsky and the old, In Search Of, television farce that used to pose as science; all they supply is question after question; never an answer.
The fact that Civil War Cannon Balls have been dug up all over Atlanta Ga., is not scientific proof of the existence of Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler. By the same token, science does employ the use of inference, but not in the same way Jacobovicki does.
We can infer Scarlet O'Hara had a mother, and we can infer from DNA and Genome Mapping that Humans and Bonobos had a common ancestor; which is more credible? You know the answer.
We can also infer that as so many of those inscriptions written on the ossuaries located in the Tapiot Tomb are also mentioned in the NT as relatives of Jesus, it`s a pretty good indication that the tomb is a family tomb of the one known as Jesus of the NT. Especially when you consider ossuaries were only used for a period of about 100 years which neatly straddles the timeframe of Jesus and his relatives. It`s been said by one of the investigators that the bones which were removed from the bone-box labeled "Jesus Son of Joseph" showed no indication of crucifiction. Some would take this as proof that the bones were not those of Jesus. It can just as easily be said that Jesus Barabbas was crucified and the names became easily mixed as a means to create a false belief that the jewish scriptures had been fulfilled by the coming of the actual messiah. Does no one recall Jesus words to Judas of "what you must do, do quickly"? Maybe a reading from the book of Judas would make things clearer? I applaud your response, I just disagree that as regards the "Jesus Tomb" we can`t infer it is the actual Jesus of NT fame based on the evidence. I see no real exaggeration by Jacobovicki, but rather a well thought out conclusion when all the evidence is added up that the chances for the Tapiot Tomb to be other than that of NT Jesus family to be so miniscule as to rival insignificance. It`s understandable that there is nothing less than a 2000 yearold tradition at stake, but I for one advocate that the truth be told though the heavens fall.
Interesting, except for the "you're just wrong" comments and the rape/bad person crap, that's not helpful.
I wonder, though, if the whole argument of "God" trying to assign a persona, a Creator aspect, isn't the whole problem. Rhonda, you talked about DNA and science having rules (interesting post btw), and Kevin, you talk about balance of entropy being maintained. So, what if what religions want to call "God" and assign a father aspect to IS nothing more than the existence of these "rules of science", this balance that must be maintained.
(My mother would argue this with me in a delightfully circular fashion *grin* but I am keeping my own and her faith and religious beliefs out of this. I am simply posting a question to see what kicks out. :) Please, no name calling. It's mean. )
"That's not helpful" really means it digs at the heart of the myths.
No, Greg, it means shutting down a different point of view because you don't like it or believe in it is not helpful to a discussion.
Sparky,
What can we infer from the fact five of the principle proponents of these discoveries have been under indictment and on trial in Israel for forging antiquities for decades?
What can we infer from the fact Jacobovicki claims the "James Ossuary," is the 'missing' one a group of ten first excavated in 1980, when the same box was photographed in 1976 in the home of one of the five men charged?
What can we infer from the fact the photo shows the full incription on the box, but the man who actually dug it up says when he had in his possession, it had no inscription on it?
What can we infer from the fact a man (one of the five charged) who supposedly possessed this 1st century artifact that should have been of vast religious and historical significance in 1976, spoke not one word about it until 2002? Was he perhaps waiting for the forged inscision to 'cure" properly?
What can we infer from this: "The assertions of 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' are not supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars." From Wikipedia.
For something a little deeper than inference, try this article:
What can we infer from the fact 22 boxes from the same period are inscribed with the name Jesus, while 42 are inscribed with the name Mary?
What can we infer from the fact one of the boxes in question is inscribed with the name Mariamene... not Mary, and that inscription is in Greek, while some of the others in questions are written in Hebrew and some in Aramaic?
We can infer the truth about these discoveries is not easily arrived at, nor is it agreed upon by the scientific community. We can infer, like I said that Jacobovicki has been accused by scientists of jumping to premature conclusions and of conflating artifacts with tenuous connections into a web of suppositions with little basis in fact.
I will predict that whether or not you are satisfied of any truth, the heavens will not fall.
Sorry, this site deleted my link to that article I mentioned... Just Google;
Benjamin Wiker, Jesus Tombs Debunked.
"hupso" - perhaps means "this way up"??????
Nah, "hupso" probably means fra-g-lay. Must be Italian.
It's an award. A major award. Simcha won it! Hopefully he puts it in the front window.
And when the wife bumps against it and breaks it, that PROVES it was fra-g-lay!
And this tidy little apologizing explanation of the bible is exactly why the bible is simply complete @!$%#.
Yea, thats the point of why your bible is complete @!$%#.
Ahh I love one of these comments already, preparing for more good laughs. Let the superstitious idiots begin.
It's cute when your looking for Bigfoot or Atlantis, but as soon as you throw religion into the mix it's like setting a match to gasoline. It's tabloid archaeology, just enough science to get it on Discovery and religiously salacious enough to pi$$ off the believers and draw in everyone else.
There is no science required to get anything on Discovery. That's why they have shows like Ghost Lab. Keep catering to the lowest common denominator guys!
The problem here as I see it is ...
If this WERE Christ's, or Christ's Family Tomb, it would shoot all kinds of Bible stuff all to hell. Maybe even the whole Christian gig. Christians need Christ as is. Anything else, and their religion dies. So how do you trust, anything that those that have so much to loose, have to say about it?
And then where would the Religious Right go for the defense for all their hate, fear and bigotry? To justify all for their beliefs?
Just asking?
Here's the thing: Even if there were irrefutable evidence that this was the tomb of Jesus Christ himself, it will not change anything. Those who believe in the Bible will simply dismiss the facts. "Lots of people were called Jesus. Lots of people were considered saviors. But I believe in the true savior who was resurrected, therefore this can't be His tomb." That's what belief and faith are.
As a scientist, I wouldn't consider this to be the tomb of Jesus. The evidence isn't there and the researchers seem to have examined the evidence with their minds made up. When you do research you have a remarkable ability to find what you're looking for if you've already decided what you're going to find. Fame and fortune exacerbate this effect.
Fortune and glory, kid.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if this technology could be applied to the First Emperor Chin's tomb? I want to see the seas and rivers of mercury before I die!
I though Jewish did not believe in Jesus' resurrection...
they dont chris, it's just Simcha trying to sell his books and TV show (is that silly piece of tripe still on?), this guy is the Fox News of archeology, in fact he isnt even an archeologist as the name of his show would have led you to believe, he is just a wingnut selling snake oil like all the rest of them. They are too afaird of looking like idiots for believing in fairy tales so they make up evidence to prove their point. Simcha is a con man, plain and simple.
Why is this even news? Even if you found a casket fully preserved with a man that resembled the way Jesus is portrayed in drawings, what then? There is no proof he ever did any of the @!$%# that storybook would have you believe. This is just another attempt to get the people arguing against each other, so they can't unite and make logical and/or critical thinking decisions.
Its Sky Fairy Time!!!!
Follow the shoe!!!!!!
Graham Chapman would so love this.
Seriously folks,
Is it just me, or does my dog's butt look like jesus...
allah akbar!!!!!!
Well... what are you waiting for? Call the media! Take pictures of your dog's butt and post them online! Heck, you might even be able to charge people to sniff it!!!
The rabid left who claim that Jesus did not even exist are as ignorant as the far right who are obsessed with him being the son of God.
I wish we could take the rabid left and ship them all off to Cuba and take the rabid religious right and send them off to a new Jonestown in Guyana. Anarchists can be sent to Somalia. Nothing like a good dose of reality to set these idiots straight.
LOL good one izmee
Hey WillimaJenkins show me evidence that baby jesus existed. BTW maybe you should take your own advice.
Lucky for us it is just you.
frespech like a good christian speaking for everybody. Please speak for yourself.
Sorry- Lucky for us it is just Izmee and Greg.
The only part you got right was that you're sorry.
I know you are but what am I. How old are you 12?
LOL. Yep sorry you're sorry.
frespech,
2 Questions about when you take communion:
I dont care about your sky fairy.
I do care about having to deal with the morons that the rest of us have to deal with as a result of that belief in your sky fairy
I just don't get it why people with at least high school education believe not even good bed time stories; bible. With abundance of scientific evidence of how earth, sun, universe was created, it is hard to think that some of the responses were written by people with brain in their scull. What did it for me at age of 9 was my simple observation of sky with clouds and lighting. One of my teachers have explained that lighting is caused by friction of a dust particles in the clouds picked up from earth surface by hot air, well, you know the mechanism. So teacher’s explanation and my observation made a sense. What did not make sense was preachers saying, see the lighting, hear the thunder; god is angry at you. I am atheist since age of 9.
.
You base you belief upon mysticism? You lost faith because someone said something stupid? I lose faith in people everyday. I have yet to lose faith in there being a higher power however. I don't put faith in people and most of all what they say. There are a lot of confused people out there guy. Listen to what logic and reason say before you throw them out the window. You were born from parents. You did not come from apes. For thousands of years people have been born from humans not apes. You really want to believe that we came from apes? Then you ought to think long and hard about what you believe.
Think about it. First off you would need two genetic anomalies. One male one female. If the odds of one genetic anomaly is in the 10*-10 then how about 2 genetic anomalies? Not only that but in the exact same area? From two different sets of parents? Otherwise they could not breed. Think long and hard about what is possible and what is not.
Feed the bloody atheists to the lions.
Hey, Shawn, if I holding Ace - King what is the probability an Ace or King coming on the flop or turn or river? :-)
Looking at the sky, the sun, myself, and all the other things that I didn't create and have no idea about, lead me to believe more in God. Scientist hardly know anything about creation, alot of theories, they don't even know what gravity is (yeah do some research), gravity is theoretical. Compared to all the stuff that science knows exist, universes and galaxies that are some how functioning in damn near harmony, they don't know anywhere (nowhere near) enough about it to make a claim of if a creator exists or not, we don't even know all about the earth, not to mention the human body! To say if that there is no God, is a stretch on our level of knowledge, I don't believe anyone should make that assumption, scientist should just continue learning and stop trying to get to far ahead of themselves claiming their is no God. This could be rooted in anger among some scientists, who had experiences like you, with preachers of parents. But it's not all rooted in knowledge. Don't let peoples (Scientists or Preachers) lack of understanding lead you to believe their is no God.
But it makes perfect sense to Christians that an old man in the sky came down and fashioned a man out of dirt then pulled his rib out and made a woman??? LOL!
megadon
Gravity is the affect you see to a curve in space/time. All mass has gravity due to the affect mass has on space time. A theory granted, but a lot better than god did it.
Untrue. Try getting your genetic science from a college textbook instead of an evolution-debunking online preacher. A warning ahead of time, though... It will take some time and effort to understand. The basics are simple, but the higher details are more than can be boiled down into easily digested and repeated metaphors.
Please take a lesson in meteorology as to the cause of discharge of lightning and if that teacher is still alive you might want to send him or her a copy of what you discover.
"Scientist hardly know anything about creation, alot of theories, they don't even know what gravity is (yeah do some research), gravity is theoretical."
Megadon- such a strange name for a Creationist. As Big John explained, gravity isn't just a theory and not believing in gravity is going to make you float off your desk chair. Scientists don't really know anything about creation because science doesn't teach that the world and all on it was created by a diety. Evolution has been observed through lifeforms, from humans and animals to the smallest virus, and the smaller it is, the faster it evolves. Simple observation proves this theory alone. Known facts debunks the Biblical stories as a myth. We are not the center of the universe, the Earth is not flat, humans were lucky to live past their 70's back then, man and dinosaurs existed over 65 million years apart and there was no world-wide flood that made all but the inhabitants of a large boat extinct only to be fully repopulated a few hundred years later. The languages we speak evolved over hundreds of years, not suddenly existing after a big tower fell over. The men and women accused and executed for witchcraft were innocent, the US was constituted to have a secular government while allowing the freedom to practice any religion. Many people's lives and careers were ruined by the HUAC while finding very few actual Communists, there are no organized Satanists giving out bad candy to sacrifice children on Halloween; backwards records, board games, heavy metal and Harry Potter books don't turn children and teens into devil worshipers and God has never shown any proof of his existance and only the naive and brainwashed claims there is any. Our galaxy, like our solar system, revolves around a center and the universe as we know it has no known boundries, so there is no center, nor would we be it if there was one. I'd rather a working theory than your truth any day, thank you.
And there is the crux of religion.
People didn't understand microbial contamination and it's effects on getting sick.... ergo pigs are unclean animals and are not to be eaten.
People didn't understand the cause of tornados and earthquakes... ergo god is angry and punishing us.
People didn't understand disease patterns and plagues... ergo the angle of death comes down an kills everybody who is unfaithful.
People didn't understand evolution... ergo we have the adam and eve fable.
We still don't understand a lot of things... ergo we make up religious explanations to make us feel better.
I'm seeing a pattern here.
666: You may want to run that theory again. The smaller something is the faster it evolves. There were experiments done with fruitlies, genetic altering testing over 100's of generations, one guess what they came up with.
FRUIT FLIES.
frespech,
Were the fruit flies the same or different at the end of the test? How much different were they? Was any selective pressure applied? A funny thing happens if no selective pressure is applied. Nothing changes. If it ain't broke it can't be fixed.
frespech, natural evolution is pretty slow by itself, but if a genetic experiment is done on a species, they can change within a few generations, rather than over several thousand or several million years on even animals larger than a fruitfly. Ethical scientists would rather prefer not to. Regardless, I'm talking about viruses and bacteria (much smaller than a fruit fly) being able to change and adapt with their enviroment, becoming stronger, develop immunity to vaccines or even becoming entirely new species in a short time- an evolution of life that really is no different than how various human races and animal breeds came to existance.
DO YOU ALL EVER REALLY READ YOUR RELIGIOUS TEXTS ???
All three of these terminal religious belief systems known as the Abrahamic religions advocate the future establishment of a global totalitarian theocratic kingdom perpetually ruled by a supreme demigod dictator. I have warned everyone countless times that these Abrahamic religions are all highly virulent and mutagenic Human Software Viruses (HSVs) intended to crash and explode our emerging human world in a final programmed cataclysm of global warfare fueled with WMDs, known as the Christian Apocalypse or World War III. They were all covertly designed and installed by outside offensive totalitarian ETs who repeatedly masqueraded as Divinity toward mankind over a period of several thousand Earth years. They are all biocybernetic warfare components of a larger ET designed PWMD, or Program Weapon of Mass Destruction, which is setting up to go off in our world in a final program "End Time" way right now. If it eventually does, these ETs are poised to militarily invade our human world, using their eminent domain rights of military intervention in our sector of the Milky Way galaxy, while once more masquerading as Divinity toward mankind, this time as the returning Messiah, Christ or Mahdi, whichever the case may be. I have tried repeatedly to give mankind the real "Gospel" or "Good News", which is that mankind potentially has countless millions (even billions) of years of growth, development and expansion ahead of them, so long as they don't fall for these ET designed and installed terminal religious "End Time" belief systems. Please listen before it is too late, everyone !!! - Rick Carter
Who's laws should we follow to get us there in one piece?
Easy to generalize but be careful of the Devil lurking in the details. Who is smart enough to find and avoid that bastard?
Our international community needs to establish a future universal standard for all religion in our world (in the form of an international treaty), which all religion in our world then needs to be brought into full compliance with, which in turn fully respects modern day human rights, civil rights, and internationally accepted mental health standards. This is absolutely vital if we are to ever successfully reform these radical and dangerous Abrahamic religions, and successfully defuse this ET designed and installed PWMD. - Rick Carter
lol ... Rick ... " You are John Carter? " ... :-)
No, I am simply Rick Carter. - RC
RC, your certainty about ETs and PWMDs (you don't even propose it as a theory, much less a mere hypothesis) makes several leaps of unsupported logic which are very akin to religion.
I lived at Wright Patterson Air Force base from 1951 to 1953, while my grandfather (Colonel Charles Faulkner Carter) was second in command there, and he was personally involved in the background investigation into the Roswell Incident of 1947. My grandfather faithfully followed his own personal live of investigation, one which led him into a veritable minefield of religious issues, any one of which could have 'blown up in his face' and potentially ended his distinguished military career. Eventually my grandfather could no longer share his findings with his military peers because they were so fraught with religious overtones, so he had to turn to his wife (my grandmother, Dorothy E. Carter) as his main confidant in the Roswell Investigation, and at that time I had to be in her care 24/7 because of a congenital (developmental) birth defect (congenital inguinal hernia) which needed surgical repair. I was sent off to live with them because I had a brother who was two years older than me, and a sister who was one year older than me, and they were both still of the crying age. Whenever they started crying I just naturally joined in, and this risked a strangulated intestine. Back then they had very poor analgesics and anesthetics for very young children, so they had to wait until I was six months old before they could operate on me, and then there was still a post operative recovery period following that. Eventually (for various family reasons) I ended up spending two full years at Wright Patterson Air Force base during this extremely fraught time, which essentially gave me a front row seat to the Roswell investigation, especially along the lines of investigation which my grandfather was following. These same ETs overflew Washington DC for several weeks back in 1952, in order to demand the return of the Roswell crash remains. They chose the middle of the Korean War to do this, since we had our hands full militarily with the Soviets, the Red Chinese, and the North Koreans. These ETs were reconning our post WWII nuclear facilities in the western and southwestern United States back in 1947, as part of a baseline study into our emerging WMD capability. (These WMDs have a very key role to play in the final programmed "End Time" cataclysm known as the Christian Apocalypse or World War III.) These ETs were particularly interested in the Roswell, N.M. area because Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) was located there, and the 509th bomber group was based there, and they were the only bomber group in the entire world at the time authorized to carry nuclear weapons. - Rick Carter
I submit there is more validity in RC`s position than are to be found in the supernatural magical make-believe of the bible millions blindly follow. ET`s exist and we are nothing more or less than a genetic alteration of lifeforms not necessarily native to planet earth, compliments of genetic manipulation by various alien species. From where comes this desire by mankind to travel the stars if not part of a genetic sequence, installed as a means for us to follow him (them?) as a means to "do the work I (they?) do"? "Let us make man in our image".
Good cut and paste RC. You have posted this often in UFO articles.
Greg
My son prayed for you just like I said he would! I didn't have to tell him too, he just has a heart of gold.
Rick... Seek help.
I just love all the comments that talk about sky fairy and magic etc.... but when you think about the scientific explanation to how we got here you run into a similar situation like: Everything in the universe came from a tiny ball of matter that somehow exploded and created the universe. That is just a theory that has not been proved, but a lot of people believe it, (the same way that Christians believethat God created everything). Billions of dollars have been spent to prove this theory and the theory of evolution, but both are still theories which means you just have to believe in it. Talk about a religion, you guys believe in the same fairy tales just a different god.
"Let he who has seen the Big Bang cast the first stone." ... :-)
He wouldn't mind a little humor would He?
"I hear brethren and one day they will hear us too." ... sorry :-)
Almost as far back as recorded history exists, religions have used the unknown as proof of the existence of god(s). And as people sought to understand natural phenomena so we could know why crops came up in the spring, the the earth rotated around the sun, what lightning is, how complex organisms came to be- they were decried as heretics and fought by religions every step of the way. And as soon as scientific study explained away these "proofs" of existence of god(s) they opened up new avenues of inquiry that were immediately set upon by religions as new "proof" of their gods existence. And so the cycle continues on ad infinitum.
Two other things:
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory and has held up to every rational line of study for a century and a half. It no more requires your belief to be a fact than the moon does to continue spinning around the earth.
Science already has theories that explain the creation of the universe- the multiverse theory and the Big Crunch- all they lack at the moment is the technology by which to test them.
And when they have accomplished that will you find a new question that "proves" the existence of god?
Yes Professor Ludwig ...
"we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning". ... BJ
who started the fire, it was always burning since the universe started turning ... who started the fire?
Panther, you misunderstand the definition of the term "theory". Scientists don't say they "believe" in a theory--at best, they say that a given theory is a decent attempt to explain observed facts.
Wikipedia has a good article on scientific theory, and another one on the whole scientific method in general. I can't enter the links here because I just subscribed to cosmiclog tonight, and can't yet insert URLs into comments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Huh--I guess I CAN add links, as long as I'm clever about it.
The difference is that science has the ability to be flexible as better discoveries are made and mathmatics becomes better understood. Science has benefited mankind to a far greater degree than all the prayers that were ever said. Prayer is nothing more than an excuse for doing nothing of real substance to help another. Yes, the Big-Bang theory may not be the best factual representation of what happened at the beginning of the universe but who can argue it meets the best test, for now, our science sets for it? People are free to still think "god" said a few magic words and BANG...there it all was in 6 days. No wonder such ilk see the rationale of science as an enemy. These are people that have no problem at all with using science in lieu of prayer when they need medical help. Where is their faith when they cannot totally have faith in an all knowing "god" to cure their ills and forego the use of science?
Ok. I've been reading these posts for tooo long. My turn. There are many theories by many people. I saw a special on one of the science channels that said they have been able to trace the origin of the universe back to about a fraction of a second after the "big bang". They could go no further than that. They didn't know what actually caused the big bang but theorized it might have been a rip in a parallel universe. To me, a plausible theory and probably caused a big bang. We still have so much to learn.
Even in the bible there are references to alien type spacecraft. Chariots with fire coming out the back etc. Many religions have started because of large or amazing occurences in the world. The average person does not seem to be able to wrap his mind around the incredible or strange things that happen and just defer it to some god that did it. I have read in many a science fiction story and found to be true that technology of advanced civilizations would seem like magic to the lesser advanced. For example: Imagine if you could go back in time and bring back someone from 3 or 4,000 years ago. You brought them into a darkened room and said "Let there be light" and clapped twice. I think you see my point. You would be like a god to that person.
Now, I don't know if there is a god, but there could very well be an advanced civilization out there, much more so than ours, and they would look like gods to us. Their technology like magic. Atheists and religious people should not pigeonhole themselves. Look and learn and be openminded. You both could be right.
Someone said above that since the universe started about the same time others technology would be on the same level with ours. Not so. The dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years until a comet or asteroid ended them. That sets us back quite a bit from where other civilizations could conceivable be at this time.
Anyway, I find it strange that religious people tend to think atheists are evil people. I'm not. I'm pretty nice to everyone. And I don't do it just to assure my place in "heaven" or because some book told me to. I do it because I want to.
Very rational response. Nice to know there exists people in the world that understand the value of being decent to one another without fear or reward as a cause. Unfortunately you will no doubt draw the ire of many admitted followers of a man named Jesus, a man who advised mankind to be more charitable, compassionate, tolerant and forgiving. Concepts that once were seen as christian virtues but have been reduced to evidence of weakness by the religious conservative ilk in lust with political power.
"Baseless Faith"? You mean like evolution is also a baseless faith? No one is sure when questioned but they sure put up their credentials as proof that evolution exists too and yet has no bases what so ever that is supported other then supposition or theories. Those are acceptable as proof and fact that evolution happened? Last time I checked the words "I have a degree so I know what I am talking about!" is not considered scientific proof either! Last time I checked nothing but observable, measurable and testable evidence is accepted as fact when dealing with science. Credentials; however observable are not evidence for evolution. That is evidence of going to school.
Do you believe that your god came down with a shovel and dug the Grand Canyon or that it was millions of years of erosion that created it? After all, we see much smaller examples of erosion occurring around us almost every day. The only difference is that in the case of the Grand Canyon the process took millions of years to happen.
And that is EXACTLY the same way it works with evolution. In over a century and a half, no rational line of inquiry has led to any other possible conclusion.
Professor Ludwig ... why are humans the only creatures on the planet that wear clothes?
And one more thing, evolution is not equal to erosion. If you can explain how evolution works I will send you one virgin every 72 hours (or what your cycle is).
"why are humans the only creatures on the planet that wear clothes?"
goofy-tv-ads-sell-chimps-short
"If you can explain how evolution works I will send you one virgin every 72 hours"
There's a little known book called "The Origin of the Species" that explains how natural selection combined with genetic mutation work. You might start there.
Keep your virgins.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
First you need to look up the definition of THEORY. I do not think is means what you think it means.
There are 10000s of transitional forms found by scientists (fact) and methods of observing these transitions (fact). I understand why you ignore the evidence but not why you came here to show your ignorance.
Maybe you were looking for PROOF, which is something completely different.
Evolution can be observed in viruses and bacteria. When a viruse mutates and lets say becomes airborn, it's genetic material has just changed and a positivie benefit resulted which could allow the virus to adapt to a new environment. That is evolution. This happens. Not a theory a fact. Where evolution can break down is when people say we descended from apes. This is not correct. We descended from a different species that has long since disappeared that was quite similar to apes. And just out of curiosity, how do people explain cromangnun man (sp?). This was a completely different species of human that lived along side modern homo sapiens, but was extinct after the last ice age I believe. Evolution does exist, may not be apes to man but there are small steps that happen, and one could assume that all those small steps may lead to big changes over lets say a couple million years. That is the theory. And dont confuse theory with hypothesis as most people seem to do on this thread.
The virus does not become a pig or a goat not in a billion years.
"Professor Ludwig ... why are humans the only creatures on the planet that wear clothes?"
Because we evolved to know that we needed protection from the elements, from the sun to the freezing cold and that we don't have enough hair on our bodies to protect us without covering ourselves. The other is that throughout history we're the only species that were taught to be ashamed of our certain body parts and created laws that prohibits their exposure in public. This was long before Adam and Eve started to wear fig leaves even so there was no one else around to be offended.
Given enough time (billions of years is about right) a virus very well may become something as complicated as a pig or goat. We have fossil evidence of some of the earliest single organisms that existed (rock fossils out of Australia). As time went by we find basic multicellular organisms (like slime mold) and then more advanced organisms (like the hydra) and increasing complexity.
Why doesn't a series of small steps equal a big step? You can test this right now at home. Take tiny steps forward. Eventually you will get across the room, further than you could have taking a single large step.
If that makes ya feel better panther, lol.
Comparing evolution to religion, not that is some funny stuff. Not as funny as religion itself but hey you are getting there.
Like most things dealing with religion, this is just the latest "find" to fill the financial coffers of someone writing a book or making a documentary movie. All of these so-called theology experts have their twisted opinions concerning an array of subjects and historical people in theological history. I haven't seen or read anything that would convince me that they found Jesus burial site. Something on the order of the Shroud of Turin that has baffled theological "experts" for centuries. The bottom line is that no one really knows for sure. It is all based on theory and conjecture.
They certainly found a Jesus burial site...that is a burial site of one named Jesus along with his brothers and sisters. Problem is the names on the few ossuaries that have names seem to match those named in the NT as Jesus relatives. Those saying so are the best linguists in the world of archaic grammar. Too bad so many cling to childish indoctrination by those priests looking to maintain their power structure than embrace an objective science that reaches conclusions based on the use of reason rather than a belief in "magic". The argument is made that all those names were quite common in the first century yet the mathmatical chances of all those names grouped together in one family tomb being other than the Jesus known of in the bible, is quite ludicrous. Still it`s understandable how millions will continue to cling to a supernatural faith that has endured for 2000 years. I myself have no qualms at all accepting the tomb found near Jerusalem as the family tomb of the one known as Jesus from the NT. I just don`t accept that he was anymore magical than you or I. Im not so fearful of organized christianity that I subscribe to a belief that the NT Jesus never existed, indeed, anyone reading about the work done by Tabor and others concerning the "Tapiot Tomb" can have no other sensible conclusion except that he certainly did exist, especially considering all the scientific studies done on the existing ossuaries found in that very tomb. The people afraid to visit the website of "The Tapiot Tomb" and objectively read what is there because they fear what is there, speak volumes of how ignorance promotes foolishness and how such ignorance makes for the hatred we see in the world today.
I had a professor for a religious studies class who was fond of saying that in their zeal to find scientific proof to support their religious beliefs, the pious often shoot their arrows and then paint their targets, thus always scoring a bull's eye. And the irony is that the rest of us see them doing this, and therefore their proof is always unconvincing. The folks who explored that tomb went in with the hope that it would hold proof of the existence of Jessus, so, that is what they found. They forced the evidence to fit their view instead of changing their view to fit the evidence.And we all can see them doing it.
The controversy over this tomb and its meaning will not die, as it sits where science intermingles with religious faith, and two thousand years separate us from the time when this tomb was used.
I am curious, though, what evidence is there outside of Christian writings that such a man as Jesus existed? Do Roman annals mention him? Or would he be to obscure a public figure to merit a line or two in the surviving records?
I'm not arguing that Jesus did or did not exist, only wondering what evidence exists outside of the Bible and outside of the writings of early Christians.
I totally agree with you. I have wondered the same thing for the almost 65 years I have been on this earth. I was bombarded with religious teachings until I was blue in the face, for my first 20 years. And for the last 45 years, I have been questioning those almost 20 years of teachings. I still don't have the answers and probably never will, which is probably as it should be. Those that claim that they do are either hypocrites, naive' or self- promoting zealots, hungry for the parishioners dollars.
Even the bible is not contemporary to Jesus. It was written many decades after his time. But there are religions much older than Christianity that make the same claims (virgin birth, resurrection etc) so it would be nice if the story was original.
Coral Taxi, while you claim there is absolutely no proof that evolution has any merit, you haven't shown anyone the same proof you are demanding regarding your faith. Tell me about your god, the kind and loving father you are so proud to hold up.
If you want, I'll tell you about him. Someone earlier in this link talked about all the wars that have been fought in his name... millions have died because of him, who you so proudly hold dear. I want to add to that post by talking about all the children who are born deformed, mentally handicaped and deformed. Not to mention all the children who are raped, beaten . . . even killed ... children who never had a chance at anything. And YOU call this a loving god? I wonder .. . would you kill your child?
Personally, I honestly believe the god you so love and hold up as special is really the evil of this world. It's so sad that people like you continue to hold onto this silly notion that there is a life after death.
Few historians and scholars deny the existence of the man Jesus Christ himself because there are so many references to him not just in religious texts but in pagan and Jewish sources as well. So it doesn't really come down to if Jesus existed or not but rather that he was actually the son of God, one who lied about his identity, or that he was deluded. Take your pick.
Hannah - Thanks, that is an informative response. Assuming more free time, I would enjoy to read translations of these texts. It would be quite interesting to read what other scholars, government officials and religious leaders had to say about this man, who, divine or not, has undoubtedly left an indelible mark on this world.
No problem. If you do get more free time (don't we all wish we had more?) you can look up books on the Historical Jesus that will be a scholarly point of view on this subject. On the flip side, More than a Carpenter is by a guy who was an agnostic that tried to debunk Christianity through researching the Bible/Christianity but through it became convinced that it was real (actually haven't read it before but i hear it was popular). Good luck in finding truth!
AH HAA I see this Piller/Nefesh Motif
It could be the real thing but where did they find this thing and why had it not been seen or thought to of been the tomb of Jesus before. He would have to be some where. I think people might of changed or moved him and thats why it was so tough to find. Lots of historic people were buried and kept hidden and have become lost and mixed in with other people. Maybe people thought finding Jesus would cause war that the Jews would lose or something and so misplaced him and forgot it and now it is not findable. Theres a reason why you can't find him. He might of got a normal burial later because of fear or not liking it and feel well by the people looking after his body.
Maybe SUSY took Him back?
Sorry I'm not that knowledgeable of religion.
Why doesn't the left-winged media ever have the courage to write propaganda about the Muslim Faith? Hummmm, maybe because they would come and blow them up? Just another way to put down Christianity.
No need, Christianity does a stellar job of that itself.
We liberals will debunk any religion that was trying to rule over us in the country we live in. Right now it's Christianity in the US. You don't have any power over us, no control over any government of a country of real power and it will stay that way until you get enough people brainwashed and in power to overturn the First Amendment and make the United States of America a "Christian Nation." People in the Middle East believe in Islam because it's forced on them since birth. Non-Muslims are outcasts in Islam controlled societies. Muslims in non-Islamic countries often immigrate to get away from the extremes of their religion, even if they are otherwise devout and are mostly offended by outright hatred, rather than simple critisim. If they can't handle the majority questioning their faith, then they are in the wrong country. Here, people believe because they were either raised in their faith or got brainwashed by missionaries or friends taking advantage of their pain, not because they are forced to by law and has the right to leave their church. They will, at worst, get shunned by their church or family, not hunted down by police and charged with heresy. That is what we're trying to save our society from.