Scholar: 'Jesus Tomb' makers mistaken

[Yurt]

Scholar: 'Jesus Tomb' makers mistaken

JERUSALEM - A scholar looking into the factual basis of a popular but widely criticized documentary that claims to have located the tomb of Jesus said Tuesday that a crucial piece of evidence filmmakers used to support their claim is a mistake

Stephen Pfann, a textual scholar and paleographer at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said he has released a paper claiming the makers of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" were mistaken when they identified an ancient ossuary from the cave as belonging to the New Testament's Mary Magdalene.

The film's director, Simcha Jacobovici, responded that other researchers agreed with the documentary's conclusions.

Produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron, the documentary has drawn intense media coverage for its claims challenging accepted Christian dogma.

Despite widespread ridicule from scholars, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" drew more than 4 million viewers when it aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4. A companion book, "The Jesus Family Tomb," has rocketed to sixth place on The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list.

The film and book suggest that a first-century ossuary found in a south Jerusalem cave in 1980 contained the remains of Jesus, contradicting the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Ossuaries are stone boxes used at the time to store the bones of the dead.

The filmmakers also suggest that Mary Magdalene was buried in the tomb, that she and Jesus were married, and that an ossuary labeled "Judah son of Jesus" belonged to their son.

The scholars who analyzed the Greek inscription on one of the ossuaries after its discovery read it as "Mariamene e Mara," meaning "Mary the teacher" or "Mary the master."

Before the movie was screened, Jacobovici said that particular inscription provided crucial support for his claim. The name Mariamene is rare, and in some early Christian texts it is believed to refer to Mary Magdalene.

But having analyzed the inscription, Pfann published a detailed article on his university's Web site asserting that it doesn't read "Mariamene" at all.

The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame," was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara," meaning "and Mara." Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher," but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha."

"In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary ... to Mary Magdalene or any other person in biblical, non-biblical or church tradition," Pfann wrote.

..........


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_sc/jesus_tomb;_ylt=AqtJn8DrEbOkpdEj0OkdblAEtbAF

[Abbey Marie]

Despite widespread ridicule from scholars, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" drew more than 4 million viewers when it aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4. A companion book, "The Jesus Family Tomb," has rocketed to sixth place on The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list.


Just think of all the money I could make if I wrote a book claiming Jesus was gay and an alcoholic. I just know there's a market out there for it. :rolleyes:

[Mr. P]

This sure did fade fast, huh?

[avatar4321]

So i guess that book should be moved to the fiction list now?

[Gaffer]

It was always fiction.

I did note that they spent more time covering the documentary and number of viewers along with mentioning all the researchers that had something to do with it than they did on the Dr that was debunking it. He only gets mentioned in the last third or the article.

[gabosaurus]

Anything to make a buck these days. There have been past efforts to "authenticate" the fact that Jesus was (choose one) black, female, married, gay and a deadbeat dad.
It's a belief, people. There is nothing about God, Jesus or The Bible that can be authenticated. Due to the fact that Jesus was not known for giving press conferences and setting up photo ops.

[5stringJeff]

It's a belief, people. There is nothing about God, Jesus or The Bible that can be authenticated. Due to the fact that Jesus was not known for giving press conferences and setting up photo ops.

Except that there is plenty about the Bible that can be authenticated. Much of the history in the Bible has been verified by non-Biblical historical writings. And there was sufficient proof of Jesus' resurrection to convince thousands of Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers to follow the Messiah. If there's not evidence, why would anyone believe?

[glockmail]

Except that there is plenty about the Bible that can be authenticated. Much of the history in the Bible has been verified by non-Biblical historical writings. And there was sufficient proof of Jesus' resurrection to convince thousands of Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers to follow the Messiah. If there's not evidence, why would anyone believe? Agreed. There's a ton of evidence out there. Isn't it odd that most atheists are also libs? :rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

Except that there is plenty about the Bible that can be authenticated. Much of the history in the Bible has been verified by non-Biblical historical writings. And there was sufficient proof of Jesus' resurrection to convince thousands of Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers to follow the Messiah. If there's not evidence, why would anyone believe?

I think the strongest evidence are the witness we recieve from the Holy Spirit. The still, small, but still powerful voice of revelation that all those who exercise faith in Christ can recieve. I can't think of much better evidence than God saying so.

But too many people are unwilling to even consider asking Him to know the truth. I can't for the life of me figure out why. You'd think that in matters of religion one would go to the source AKA God to learn things for certain.

Now that's not say all the physical evidence is bad or that we shouldn't look to it as well. But you could prove every iota of the Bible, and it wouldnt have the power to convert people. Only the Spirit can.

[glockmail]

I think the strongest evidence are the witness we recieve from the Holy Spirit. The still, small, but still powerful voice of revelation that all those who exercise faith in Christ can recieve. I can't think of much better evidence than God saying so.

But too many people are unwilling to even consider asking Him to know the truth. I can't for the life of me figure out why. You'd think that in matters of religion one would go to the source AKA God to learn things for certain.

Now that's not say all the physical evidence is bad or that we shouldn't look to it as well. But you could prove every iota of the Bible, and it wouldnt have the power to convert people. Only the Spirit can. True but the physical evidence sure is fun to shine in the face of non-believers. :poke:

[Missileman]

True but the physical evidence sure is fun to shine in the face of non-believers. :poke:

Physical evidence of what exactly?

[Missileman]

But too many people are unwilling to even consider asking Him to know the truth. I can't for the life of me figure out why. You'd think that in matters of religion one would go to the source AKA God to learn things for certain.


No offense, but that's a classic example of circular logic. You could apply that same argument to anything, including but not limited to, Santa Claus, leprechauns, aliens, Bigfoot, etc.

[glockmail]

Physical evidence of what exactly? We've been over this before, man. Are you sure you want to go there again?

[Missileman]

We've been over this before, man. Are you sure you want to go there again?

I'm not sure that we have...I'm interested in this physical evidence you claim exists, and what you think it proves.

[darin]

But too many people are unwilling to even consider asking Him to know the truth


I was thinking about this in church sunday. I started to realize people haven't changed. Since the Beginning, people have consistently rejected Truth in favour of Lies. Eve. The Whole World save Noah. All the way up to Christ being killed by the popular opinion of the masses (idiots didnt know, however, what they were doing was EXACTLY what needed to be done).

Mankind has historically REJECTED truths because of the freedom God has granted our minds and hearts.

People LOVE lies. I dunno why. Sometimes I wonder why God created man with such an amazing ability to bow to impenetrable ignorance.

[glockmail]

I'm not sure that we have...I'm interested in this physical evidence you claim exists, and what you think it proves. You wouldn't believe God existed if you were standing on His rock.

[Missileman]

You wouldn't believe God existed if you were standing on His rock.

Is this an admission that there is no physical evidence?

[glockmail]

Is this an admission that there is no physical evidence? Not exactly. Do you think the Earth was created by chance? :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Not exactly. Do you think the Earth was created by chance? :laugh2:

I don't think the earth was "created" at all. Is your standard going to be so low that you're going to claim the existence of matter is proof of God?

[glockmail]

I don't think the earth was "created" at all. Is your standard going to be so low that you're going to claim the existence of matter is proof of God? So the earth and molecules simply just happened by chance. Is that your position? :laugh2:

[Missileman]

So the earth and molecules simply just happened by chance. Is that your position? :laugh2:

It's at least as plausible as some invisible deity whipping them up by magic.

[glockmail]

It's at least as plausible as some invisible deity whipping them up by magic. Actually you are incorrect. The entity either exists or not, statistically a 50% chance. For a mere molecule to be created by chance, the chances are 1/ a string of nines. For the earth or life, the chances are infinitesimally low.

[Missileman]

Actually you are incorrect. The entity either exists or not, statistically a 50% chance. For a mere molecule to be created by chance, the chances are 1/ a string of nines. For the earth or life, the chances are infinitesimally low.

And you are incorrect, matter occurred through chance or through creation, same odds...50/50.

[Nuc]

And you are incorrect, matter occurred through chance or through creation, same odds...50/50.

Does this mean that matter occuring through chance or by being spewed out of the anus of a galactic kangaroo is also 50/50? Any two possiblilities 50/50? C'mon.

[typomaniac]

Does this mean that matter occuring through chance or by being spewed out of the anus of a galactic kangaroo is also 50/50?It might explain where Uranus came from... :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Does this mean that matter occuring through chance or by being spewed out of the anus of a galactic kangaroo is also 50/50? Any two possiblilities 50/50? C'mon.

I'd say that the odds of the latter or the Christian God creating everything are identical...that is one of the qualities of 50/50. It works just like true or false, off or on, or black and white.

Perhaps you might explain why the odds between chance and creation should be anything other than 50/50.

[Nuc]

I'd say that the odds of the latter or the Christian God creating everything are identical...that is one of the qualities of 50/50. It works just like true or false, off or on, or black and white.

Perhaps you might explain why the odds between chance and creation should be anything other than 50/50.

It's cute to say that given any two possibilities there is a 50/50 chance. However in reality it doesn't happen like that. There is not really a 50/50 chance that Hillary Clinton or Paris Hilton will be elected POTUS. There is not really a 50/50 chance that the Green Bay Packers will be defeated by your kids grade school flag football team.

Regarding creation vs. chance. Chance is something we can observe every day. Creation is something we can observe everyday only if we believe in it.

[Missileman]

It's cute to say that given any two possibilities there is a 50/50 chance. However in reality it doesn't happen like that. There is not really a 50/50 chance that Hillary Clinton or Paris Hilton will be elected POTUS. There is not really a 50/50 chance that the Green Bay Packers will be defeated by your kids grade school flag football team.

Regarding creation vs. chance. Chance is something we can observe every day. Creation is something we can observe everyday only if we believe in it.

So in your estimation, what are the odds in regards to chance/creation?

[glockmail]

And you are incorrect, matter occurred through chance or through creation, same odds...50/50. Matter maybe, but we are talking about organized, complex systems. Like molecules, planets, and living organisms.

Its like walking down the street and finding 1000 coins balanced on their sides. From your perspective, that could happen by chance. I would say that somebody set up the coins that way.

[glockmail]

It's cute to say that given any two possibilities there is a 50/50 chance. However in reality it doesn't happen like that. There is not really a 50/50 chance that Hillary Clinton or Paris Hilton will be elected POTUS. There is not really a 50/50 chance that the Green Bay Packers will be defeated by your kids grade school flag football team.

Regarding creation vs. chance. Chance is something we can observe every day. Creation is something we can observe everyday only if we believe in it. you were going great until the last sentence. Creation is observed by non believers, and God exists regardless of human beliefs.

[Missileman]

Matter maybe, but we are talking about organized, complex systems. Like molecules, planets, and living organisms.

Its like walking down the street and finding 1000 coins balanced on their sides. From your perspective, that could happen by chance. I would say that somebody set up the coins that way.

One only needs to look at a single snowflake to observe spontaneous complexity. As for your example, if among several trillion coins I came upon a 1,000 on their edge, I'd certainly call it chance.

By the way, still waiting for this "physical evidence" you claim to be able to throw in the faces of atheists...are you ever going to get around to it?

[Nuc]

So in your estimation, what are the odds in regards to chance/creation?

Whether the universe was created or not is not measurable by numbers or percentages. Is it? That's something you believe or don't believe. Even if you think it's unlikely a believer would bet on the 1% chance that it happened that way.

[Nuc]

I'd say that the odds of the latter or the Christian God creating everything are identical...that is one of the qualities of 50/50. It works just like true or false, off or on, or black and white.

Perhaps you might explain why the odds between chance and creation should be anything other than 50/50.

There are numerous creation myths (or beliefs or whichever term you prefer) whereas chance is an objective reality. Therefore chance would be more likely than any one of those creation myths on a percentage basis. Which still wouldn't dissuade anybody who believes in any particular creation story.

[glockmail]

One only needs to look at a single snowflake to observe spontaneous complexity. As for your example, if among several trillion coins I came upon a 1,000 on their edge, I'd certainly call it chance.

By the way, still waiting for this "physical evidence" you claim to be able to throw in the faces of atheists...are you ever going to get around to it?

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face. :laugh2:

Really? Then perhaps your college education can explain why each snowflake is different under a microscope? Hardly the result of a preprogrammed sequence.

[Missileman]

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face. :laugh2:

If every snowflake were identical, your design argument would hold water.

Another couple generations of crickets have come and gone, and you STILL haven't put forth a single piece of physical evidence. If you don't really have any, just say so.

[Gunny]

There are numerous creation myths (or beliefs or whichever term you prefer) whereas chance is an objective reality. Therefore chance would be more likely than any one of those creation myths on a percentage basis. Which still wouldn't dissuade anybody who believes in any particular creation story.

I disagree. I find a creator FAR more likely than mere happenstance. Nowhere even close to the previously mentioned 50/50.

I don't see that my belief has anything to do with it; rather, a logical conclusion. Where exactly does "happenstance" begin? The "Big Bang?"

A scientific theory that defies scientific law. Something is created from nothing. This is of course followed by just the right amount of energy and matter combining ot form life, conveniently located on a planet that just happens to be the perfect distance from the sun to support said life. And this spark of life goes from microscopic proportions to populating an entire planet with life in all its forms.

That's about as Sci-Fi B movie as it gets, IMO.

[glockmail]

Really? Then perhaps your college education can explain why each snowflake is different under a microscope? Hardly the result of a preprogrammed sequence.
The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

[Missileman]

The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

Don't look now, but I think you just described spontaneous complexity.

[glockmail]

.....

Another couple generations of crickets have come and gone, and you STILL haven't put forth a single piece of physical evidence. If you don't really have any, just say so. For a clue, re-read post 16. So what are the odds that the Earth and your surroundings were created by chance?

[Gunny]

The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

Did you just try to explain "pre-programmed sequence" with the word "random?":laugh2:

[glockmail]

Don't look now, but I think you just described spontaneous complexity. More proof of intelligent design. :coffee:

[glockmail]

Did you just try to explain "pre-programmed sequence" with the word "random?":laugh2: A random number generator cannot be programmed? :laugh2:

[glockmail]

So Gunny, are you an atheist?

[Gunny]

A random number generator cannot be programmed? :laugh2:

Which would support snow being a preprogrammed sequence based on certain atmospheric conditions. But it does NOT support this statement where you say the snowflake crystal ...


The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator.

[Missileman]

For a clue, re-read post 16. So what are the odds that the Earth and your surroundings were created by chance?

The point you seem to be failing to grasp is that if there is even a 1 in a gazillion chance that our existence is the result of chance, you can't use our existence as proof of creation. If that's the extent of your "evidence", you can't prove anything.

[Gunny]

So Gunny, are you an atheist?

What is the purpose to your question since you already know I am not?

[Gunny]

So Gunny, are you an atheist?

Quite simply, this is an argument that can only be argued to a stalemate since within the context of debate, neither side can prove anything nor disprove anything in finality. It all boils down to personal belief.

Yet, you manage to lose this argument every time because of your one-sided viewpoints, stating opinion/belief as fact, and not arguing within the scope of what you CAN prove.

You posted at one point you could provide evidence to support your belief. Where is it?

If you're going to represent, then REPRESENT.

[glockmail]

Which would support snow being a preprogrammed sequence based on certain atmospheric conditions. But it does NOT support this statement where you say the snowflake crystal ..."The [random number genertor] is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator.":laugh2:

[glockmail]

The point you seem to be failing to grasp is that if there is even a 1 in a gazillion chance that our existence is the result of chance, you can't use our existence as proof of creation. If that's the extent of your "evidence", you can't prove anything. So if there was a one in gazillion chance that OJ's DNA did not match blood on the scene, then he is innocent??

[glockmail]

What is the purpose to your question since you already know I am not?


Quite simply, this is an argument that can only be argued to a stalemate since within the context of debate, neither side can prove anything nor disprove anything in finality. It all boils down to personal belief.

Yet, you manage to lose this argument every time because of your one-sided viewpoints, stating opinion/belief as fact, and not arguing within the scope of what you CAN prove.

You posted at one point you could provide evidence to support your belief. Where is it?

If you're going to represent, then REPRESENT.

1. You seem to think that I have a catalogue here of your past posts to refer to. I assure you that your assumption is incorrect.
2. It boils down to acceptance of evidence or stone-headed rejection of same.
3. As stated previously and ignored by you both.

[Gunny]

"The [random number genertor] is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator.":laugh2:

Deflection.

[Missileman]

So if there was a one in gazillion chance that OJ's DNA did not match blood on the scene, then he is innocent??

If it were the ONLY evidence against him, it would not meet the requirement of proof. OJ's guilt/innocence is another 50/50 proposition. He either did it or didn't. The outcome of the trial doesn't change his guilt or innocence.

In that same manner, the existence of ancient Jewish mythology in the Bible doesn't change the 50/50 odds of chance vs. creation.

[Gunny]

1. You seem to think that I have a catalogue here of your past posts to refer to. I assure you that your assumption is incorrect.
2. It boils down to acceptance of evidence or stone-headed rejection of same.
3. As stated previously and ignored by you both.

This post answers absolutely NOTHING. #1 is completely irrelevant to this thread. You have been asked repeatedly to provide the evidence throughout this thread that you claim exists on page 1, post number 8.

Not MY post ... YOURS. Perhaps you would do well to keep a catalog of your own baseless claims.

2. How can it boil down to acceptance or rejection of evidence you refuse to provide?

The only one ignoring anything is YOU. You have continually ignored backing up your mouth with some evidence. Simple as that. None of your tapdancing, nor smoke and mirrors bullshit changes THAT.

[glockmail]

Deflection. Beyond your capacity to understand.

[Gunny]

Beyond your capacity to understand.

Hardly. You're incapable of getting there.

Fact is, your original statement was wrong, and rather than fess up, you have tired to create the usual smokescreen any PT boat commander would be proud of to avoid it.

[glockmail]

If it were the ONLY evidence against him, it would not meet the requirement of proof. OJ's guilt/innocence is another 50/50 proposition. He either did it or didn't. The outcome of the trial doesn't change his guilt or innocence.

In that same manner, the existence of ancient Jewish mythology in the Bible doesn't change the 50/50 odds of chance vs. creation.

Yet there are other physical examples: the exact expansion rate of the universe, the fact that a water molecule becomes lighter before it freezes, and the activity of the sun. None of these is a 50% chance; in fact far less, and in combination are inconceivable to occur by chance.

[glockmail]

Hardly. You're incapable of getting there.

Fact is, your original statement was wrong, and rather than fess up, you have tired to create the usual smokescreen any PT boat commander would be proud of to avoid it. You and John Kerry are in the same boat then.

[Gunny]

You and John Kerry are in the same boat then.

Whatever, loser.

[glockmail]

Whatever, loser.
Maybe you should just declare victory and get your cheerleader to jump up and down, as is your usual tactic when your debate tactics fail.

Come to think of it, algore does the same damn thing. Whouda thunk? :pee:

[Missileman]

Yet there are other physical examples: the exact expansion rate of the universe, the fact that a water molecule becomes lighter before it freezes, and the activity of the sun. None of these is a 50% chance; in fact far less, and in combination are inconceivable to occur by chance.

If our planet were the only one with water, if our solar system were the only one with planets, if our sun was the only star in existance, again you might have an argument. Unfortunately, all you've presented is "nada".

Please explain how the expansion of the universe points towards creation.

[glockmail]

If our planet were the only one with water, if our solar system were the only one with planets, if our sun was the only star in existance, again you might have an argument. Unfortunately, all you've presented is "nada".

Please explain how the expansion of the universe points towards creation.

It takes more than water to support life. There needs to be the correct amount of magnetic field, the correct percentages of nitrogen and carbon dioxide relative to oxegen, and a narrow range of reflected light, among many other variables.

If the rate of expansion of the universe were faster, then there would be no galaxy formation. If slower, then it would collapse prior to formation of stars.

[Missileman]

If the rate of expansion of the universe were faster, then there would be no galaxy formation. If slower, then it would collapse prior to formation of stars.

:link:

[Missileman]

If the rate of expansion of the universe were faster, then there would be no galaxy formation. If slower, then it would collapse prior to formation of stars.

Also, are you now arguing that the earth was created, but galaxies and stars formed by themselves?

[glockmail]

:link:
You will have to google: Barrow, John D., "The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22. (1981), pp. 404-420.

[glockmail]

Also, are you now arguing that the earth was created, but galaxies and stars formed by themselves? They were all carefully designed by a Creator.

[Gunny]

Maybe you should just declare victory and get your cheerleader to jump up and down, as is your usual tactic when your debate tactics fail.

Come to think of it, algore does the same damn thing. Whouda thunk? :pee:

I don't need to declare anything. As before, your crawfishing is right there for everyone to see.

[Gunny]

They were all carefully designed by a Creator.

And there you have it. When the going gets tough, "the Creator did it.":lame2:

[glockmail]

And there you have it. When the going gets tough, "the Creator did it.":lame2: I realize that you are having trouble keeping up, but that's no reason to be uncivil.

[Gunny]

I realize that you are having trouble keeping up, but that's no reason to be uncivil.

Not hard to keep up at all. Your argument is illogical. Simple as that.

[Missileman]

You will have to google: Barrow, John D., "The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22. (1981), pp. 404-420.

Some interesting reading. Having thoroughly read the list of 26 too positive/too negative reasons why the current state of our universe has to be more than coincidence, I came up with the same question after reading each: Without benefit of observing successes and failures for each of the 26 items in the list, how can his statements be taken as anything other than opinion? What experiments has he performed for instance to verify his contention that a galaxy couldn't form if universal expansion were taking place at a higher speed?

What I find particularly interesting is your propensity to hang your hat on, shall we say "non-mainstream" sources as the basis for your information and arguments. I recognize the attraction to a person who is saying exactly what you wish to believe is a powerful one. Being a born skeptic, I like to observe and evaluate several sources. I avoid questionable sources, especially if it is immediately obvious that the source is motivated by an agenda that might cause him to subconsciously tilt or color his findings. You might want to give that tactic a try.

[Gunny]

Some interesting reading. Having thoroughly read the list of 26 too positive/too negative reasons why the current state of our universe has to be more than coincidence, I came up with the same question after reading each: Without benefit of observing successes and failures for each of the 26 items in the list, how can his statements be taken as anything other than opinion? What experiments has he performed for instance to verify his contention that a galaxy couldn't form if universal expansion were taking place at a higher speed?

What I find particularly interesting is your propensity to hang your hat on, shall we say "non-mainstream" sources as the basis for your information and arguments. I recognize the attraction to a person who is saying exactly what you wish to believe is a powerful one. Being a born skeptic, I like to observe and evaluate several sources. I avoid questionable sources, especially if it is immediately obvious that the source is motivated by an agenda that might cause him to subconsciously tilt or color his findings. You might want to give that tactic a try.

I'm still wondering how the rate of universal expansion which is a theory is supposed to support or even not support Creationism.

I'm not even sure glock beleives in Creationism. Sounds more like he thinks we live in the Matrix.:laugh2:

[Nuc]

I disagree. I find a creator FAR more likely than mere happenstance. Nowhere even close to the previously mentioned 50/50.

I don't see that my belief has anything to do with it; rather, a logical conclusion. Where exactly does "happenstance" begin? The "Big Bang?"

A scientific theory that defies scientific law. Something is created from nothing. This is of course followed by just the right amount of energy and matter combining ot form life, conveniently located on a planet that just happens to be the perfect distance from the sun to support said life. And this spark of life goes from microscopic proportions to populating an entire planet with life in all its forms.

That's about as Sci-Fi B movie as it gets, IMO.

OK Gunny,

Let's just say that the universe was created. I still don't think that the creator has been accurately described by any human agent. Assuming that there is a creator does not endorse any existing religion.

[glockmail]

Not hard to keep up at all. Your argument is illogical. Simple as that.
To the simpleton, yes.

[glockmail]

I'm still wondering how the rate of universal expansion which is a theory is supposed to support or even not support Creationism.

I'm not even sure glock beleives in Creationism. Sounds more like he thinks we live in the Matrix.:laugh2: Since you apparently get your knowledge from Hollywood, then I can see why you would think that.

[glockmail]

Some interesting reading. Having thoroughly read the list of 26 too positive/too negative reasons why the current state of our universe has to be more than coincidence, I came up with the same question after reading each: Without benefit of observing successes and failures for each of the 26 items in the list, how can his statements be taken as anything other than opinion? What experiments has he performed for instance to verify his contention that a galaxy couldn't form if universal expansion were taking place at a higher speed?

What I find particularly interesting is your propensity to hang your hat on, shall we say "non-mainstream" sources as the basis for your information and arguments. I recognize the attraction to a person who is saying exactly what you wish to believe is a powerful one. Being a born skeptic, I like to observe and evaluate several sources. I avoid questionable sources, especially if it is immediately obvious that the source is motivated by an agenda that might cause him to subconsciously tilt or color his findings. You might want to give that tactic a try.You appear to be asking for a demonstration of the universe expanding at a different rate and the resultant impossibility of human life before you believe the scientific reasoning behind it. That is clearly impossible, and not the way science of this type is done. Instead, a theory is postulated, published, and peer reviewed. That article was published in 1981 and is still in good standing. It is also one of many I have sourced on this relative subject.

As an engineer, I design structures to support buildings, using scientific theory to ensure that they will not fall down and kill their occupants. Never have I been asked to show the building in a state of collapse to prove that the published design is adequate. None of the methods that I use to design these structures can be found in “mainstream” sources; only dry technical publications. Also, by being a skeptic, I am able to review these designs for numerous possible failure mechanisms.

[Missileman]

You appear to be asking for a demonstration of the universe expanding at a different rate and the resultant impossibility of human life before you believe the scientific reasoning behind it. That is clearly impossible, and not the way science of this type is done. Instead, a theory is postulated, published, and peer reviewed. That article was published in 1981 and is still in good standing. It is also one of many I have sourced on this relative subject.

In good standing with other pseudo-scientists maybe...I couldn't find any other reputable astro-physicist backing up his claims.


As an engineer, I design structures to support buildings, using scientific theory to ensure that they will not fall down and kill their occupants. Never have I been asked to show the building in a state of collapse to prove that the published design is adequate. None of the methods that I use to design these structures can be found in “mainstream” sources; only dry technical publications. Also, by being a skeptic, I am able to review these designs for numerous possible failure mechanisms.

And how often have you gone to the builders and claimed that one less grain of sand per metric ton of concrete and the whole thing will collapse?

I'll wager that your dry technical publications are accepted as sound by an overwhelming majority of engineers.

[Gunny]

OK Gunny,

Let's just say that the universe was created. I still don't think that the creator has been accurately described by any human agent. Assuming that there is a creator does not endorse any existing religion.

I will grant you some validity in your statement. "God," or the "Creator," only has to be intelligent and powerful beyond Man's ability to comprehend. Omnipotence not necessarily required.

Your last sentence is rather a complex argument all unto itself, and ends up the same as the rest ... a lot of theories and/or guesswork with no supporting evidence.

[Gunny]

To the simpleton, yes.

:lame2:

[Gunny]

Since you apparently get your knowledge from Hollywood, then I can see why you would think that.

You, not I, are the one presenting God as a computer programmer, and the universe an everything within a computer program.

[Gunny]

In good standing with other pseudo-scientists maybe...I couldn't find any other reputable astro-physicist backing up his claims.



And how often have you gone to the builders and claimed that one less grain of sand per metric ton of concrete and the whole thing will collapse?

I'll wager that your dry technical publications are accepted as sound by an overwhelming majority of engineers.

Quite an attempt to tie Christianity into scientific theory. First, one has to accept that the theory is sound. To say the universe is expanding one must first have identified a center, and a perimeter. This of course, would make the universe finite. Then one has to ask just what exactly is the universe expanding into .... what else if not more universe?

Anyone want to try the "World within World" theory?:poke:

[glockmail]

In good standing with other pseudo-scientists maybe...I couldn't find any other reputable astro-physicist backing up his claims.

..... . Attack the messenger. Classic. Expected.

[glockmail]

:lame2: Yet you repeat yourself. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Quite an attempt to tie Christianity into scientific theory. First, one has to accept that the theory is sound. To say the universe is expanding one must first have identified a center, and a perimeter. This of course, would make the universe finite. Then one has to ask just what exactly is the universe expanding into .... what else if not more universe?

.... The Roman's didn't understand the concept of zero either, so you are in good company. :salute:

[Gunny]

Attack the messenger. Classic. Expected.

Lame deflection. He attacked your source, not you.

[Gunny]

The Roman's didn't understand the concept of zero either, so you are in good company. :salute:

Dude, you need to lay off the KoolAid. Keeping up with you while simultaneously watching the tube isn't hard for even a 6th grader.

What it all boils down to is the entire premise of your argument is based on some bullshit theory that you cannot prove. The theory itself is arbitrary, as your attempting to use it to substantiate creation is contrived BS.

[glockmail]

Dude, you need to lay off the KoolAid. Keeping up with you while simultaneously watching the tube isn't hard for even a 6th grader.

What it all boils down to is the entire premise of your argument is based on some bullshit theory that you cannot prove. The theory itself is arbitrary, as your attempting to use it to substantiate creation is contrived BS. Sure. My advice to you: stick with Oprah. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Sure. My advice to you: stick with Oprah. :rolleyes:

Sure .. attack the poster, not the post. Hypocrite. Heed your own words.:slap:

[glockmail]

Sure .. attack the poster, not the post. Hypocrite. Heed your own words.:slap:

You seem to be good at both.

[Gunny]

You seem to be good at both.

Only where deserved.

[Missileman]

Attack the messenger. Classic. Expected.

The Reverend Jim Jones was a messenger too. So is Phelps.

Here lies the problem with your entire argument. You think that your belief in the pile of manure being shoveled by pseudo-scientists should be an adequate testament to its validity. The people buying into their junk science are in the minority and for the most part are non-scientists whose main talent is pulling crap outta their ass. You claim this bonehead's work is peer reviewed...I didn't find any accceptance of his ideas.

[glockmail]

The Reverend Jim Jones was a messenger too. So is Phelps.

Here lies the problem with your entire argument. You think that your belief in the pile of manure being shoveled by pseudo-scientists should be an adequate testament to its validity. The people buying into their junk science are in the minority and for the most part are non-scientists whose main talent is pulling crap outta their ass. You claim this bonehead's work is peer reviewed...I didn't find any accceptance of his ideas.

Stephen Hawking is a pseudo-scientist? He showed that time itself is finite. If that doesn't prove a Master Plan, that what would?


Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36.
Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548.

[Missileman]

Stephen Hawking is a pseudo-scientist? He showed that time itself is finite. If that doesn't prove a Master Plan, that what would?


Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36.
Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548.

Switching up sources and arguments? What happened to the list of 26?

[glockmail]

Switching up sources and arguments? What happened to the list of 26? I told you before I have hundreds. You called the first source A "pseudo-scientist" so I showed you what company he is in. Are all these guys "pseudo-scientists"?

[Missileman]

I told you before I have hundreds. You called the first source A "pseudo-scientist" so I showed you what company he is in. Are all these guys "pseudo-scientists"?

All what guys? What does Hawkings' theory about time have to do with the list of 26? If you want to really impress me, find an article where Hawkings agrees with the list of 26/

[glockmail]

All what guys? What does Hawkings' theory about time have to do with the list of 26? If you want to really impress me, find an article where Hawkings agrees with the list of 26/ What make you think I'm trying to impress you?

You can dismiss the sources all you want, but I have many examples, and it is you who are missing out on reality. It's not my concern that you may not heard the names of these guys whilst reading "mainstream" publications.

[Missileman]

What make you think I'm trying to impress you?

You can dismiss the sources all you want, but I have many examples, and it is you who are missing out on reality. It's not my concern that you may not heard the names of these guys whilst reading "mainstream" publications.

And yet, initially you claimed to have a mountain of physical evidence and so far, all you've presented is theories. Your interpretations of those theories means exactly zero to me. At this point, you've done no more than certify my initial reason for asking "what physical evidence?" I already knew that such evidence doesn't exist. It was fun to watch your ducking and diving, shucking and jiving...for a while. Your entertainment factor has waned, now you're just boring.

[glockmail]

And yet, initially you claimed to have a mountain of physical evidence and so far, all you've presented is theories. Your interpretations of those theories means exactly zero to me. At this point, you've done no more than certify my initial reason for asking "what physical evidence?" I already knew that such evidence doesn't exist. It was fun to watch your ducking and diving, shucking and jiving...for a while. Your entertainment factor has waned, now you're just boring.

The physical evidence is all around you.

[Missileman]

The physical evidence is all around you.

Your belief that water proves the existence of God carries no weight with me.

[glockmail]

Your belief that water proves the existence of God carries no weight with me. Water, molecules, atoms, and their inteactions. All by chance. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Water, molecules, atoms, and their inteactions. All by chance. :laugh2:

You have nothing but conjecture that it wasn't.

[glockmail]

You have nothing but conjecture that it wasn't. With that argument DNA evidence at a murder trial would be inconclusive if it indicated a 1/ billion chance of being wrong. Why take the chance at being wrong? ;)

Why is the water molecule the only common liquid to expand before it solidifies? (As a matter of fact, I don't know of any other molecule that behaves in this fashion, but feel free to educate me.) What are the chances of that occuring by chance?

[Missileman]

With that argument DNA evidence at a murder trial would be inconclusive if it indicated a 1/ billion chance of being wrong. Why take the chance at being wrong? ;)


In the first place, you've yet to establish this 1/billion chance as it pertains to the formation of the universe. Let me guess, you got the figure from the list of 26 guy.



Why is the water molecule the only common liquid to expand before it solidifies? (As a matter of fact, I don't know of any other molecule that behaves in this fashion, but feel free to educate me.) What are the chances of that occuring by chance?

If you're referring to the expansion and contraction of matter when subjected to heat and cold, I believe that's a fairly common occurence. Did you learn anything?

[glockmail]

In the first place, you've yet to establish this 1/billion chance as it pertains to the formation of the universe. Let me guess, you got the figure from the list of 26 guy.




If you're referring to the expansion and contraction of matter when subjected to heat and cold, I believe that's a fairly common occurence. Did you learn anything?

1. You don't like the source, so I shouldn't bother.
2. Actually its a very rare occurance, as stated earlier.

[Missileman]

2. Actually its a very rare occurance, as stated earlier.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble, but ALL matter expands when heated and contracts when cooled. Water is unique in that it expands when heated or frozen. That water behaves in this unique manner is hardly evidence of design or creation.

[glockmail]

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble, but ALL matter expands when heated and contracts when cooled. Water is unique in that it expands when heated or frozen. That water behaves in this unique manner is hardly evidence of design or creation. Of course it is evidence, just evidence that you dismiss.

[Missileman]

Of course it is evidence, just evidence that you dismiss.

It's only evidence that water behaves differently, nothing more, nothing less. That you assign it some mystic meaning is of no consequence. You seem to be as poorly versed in science as you are in debate.

[glockmail]

It's only evidence that water behaves differently, nothing more, nothing less. That you assign it some mystic meaning is of no consequence. You seem to be as poorly versed in science as you are in debate.
As you have reverted to insults it appears that you have lost the debate.

[Missileman]

As you have reverted to insults it appears that you have lost the debate.

It wasn't an insult, but an observation. The fact that you feel insulted means it must have been an accurate observation.

[glockmail]

It wasn't an insult, but an observation. The fact that you feel insulted means it must have been an accurate observation.
There was nothing accurate about it. That is why I consider it insulting. Perhaps you could explain in a scientific manner why water behaves in this unique way.

[Missileman]

There was nothing accurate about it. That is why I consider it insulting. Perhaps you could explain in a scientific manner why water behaves in this unique way.

Perhaps you might explain how a self-proclaimed design engineer would be unfamiliar with the expansion and contraction of metal that makes expansion joints necessary.

[glockmail]

Perhaps you might explain how a self-proclaimed design engineer would be unfamiliar with the expansion and contraction of metal that makes expansion joints necessary. Irrelevant.

[Missileman]

Irrelevant.

Hardly! You implied the expansion and contraction of matter is rare and that it's evidence of design. In order for your arguments to be credible, they should at the very least be based in fact. Since your appraisal of the rarity of the expansion and contraction of matter was flawed, it renders the rest of your "water is designed" argument invalid.

[glockmail]

Hardly! You implied the expansion and contraction of matter is rare and that it's evidence of design. In order for your arguments to be credible, they should at the very least be based in fact. Since your appraisal of the rarity of the expansion and contraction of matter was flawed, it renders the rest of your "water is designed" argument invalid.
Irrelevant. Steel is not used in structures in liquid form, turning to solid, thereby allowing fish to live in lakes of molten steel.

I really don't see where you are going with this.