Jesus' (yes that one) tomb found?

The Adventurer

New member
I believe in God but also I believe in evolution. What evolution can't explain is Homo Sapiens --- There were many other hominides species with great chances to evolve (ex homo neanderthalensis) in something better (and is not demonstrated the link between species, only supposition)...but only one succeded, and that only one species is the same with us. The only one visible difference of evolution is not somatic but rather intelectual and tehnologycal...

PS: I like to watch the discussion and stay out...I try...:D
 
Last edited:

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Doc Savage said:
Explain how fossils from supposedly different eras are found in the same strata. Explain polystrata fossils, like trees found upside down extending through 'millennia' of geological layers. A massive geological upheaval causing a sudden sorting of layers of sediment is just as plausible, scientifically, as Charles Lyell's theory. Do you know what the constitutional difference between pre-Cambrian limestone and the modern variety is? Absolutely nothing.

And leave the ad hominem at home, HK. At the risk of sounding arrogant, ignorance is not something I can be accused of.

You have references on hand, I assume?
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
What do scientists gain by convincing people to accept evolution? What do Christians gain by convincing people otherwise? The way I see it, only one group has an agenda motivating their position on this issue, and it certainly ain't scientists.
 
"There is no solid proof for God's non-existence"
Sorry... fallacy... one never tries to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of those making the claim for existence to PROVE the existence of any Flying Spaghetti Monster...

HovitosKing... take it from me, you're pissin up a rope....

"You have references on hand, I assume?"
Don't hold yer breath HK....
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
I am still waiting on those references, Doc. Are you busy gathering them or have you left me hanging?

CH, I agree on all of your above points.
 

The Adventurer

New member
I don't see other civilisation on the open universe...but from all logical scientist statistics it is impossible to be the only one in universe...I believe in other species more or less intelligent than us in the univers...and all are guvernated by the same unknown powers of the univers...by God. (who is different understood by us)

You see...it is possible both for scientist or religious people to believe what they can't see.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
HovitosKing said:
There are some very interesting quasi-human species in between
You should see some of the peculiar folks I weigh in at the clinic. Ours is a diverse species. I've yet to see a convincing transitional fossil. Remember Homo floresiensis, the hobbit-like species? It appears to be what one might call a "child."
HovitosKing said:
only one group has an agenda motivating their position on this issue, and it certainly ain't scientists.
Social scientists have often used evolution to promote Marxism, eugenics, extropia...
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Moedred said:
Social scientists have often used evolution to promote Marxism, eugenics, extropia...

As a behavioral scientist, I can attest to the fact that many "social scientists" have historically been anything but scientists. Don't lump those guys in with the rest of us.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Moedred said:
You should see some of the peculiar folks I weigh in at the clinic. Ours is a diverse species. I've yet to see a convincing transitional fossil. Remember Homo floresiensis, the hobbit-like species? It appears to be what one might call a "child."

I'm not getting into this for many reasons, but maybe the almighty wikipedia can shed some light on it for you (in an extremely rudimentary and oversimplified sort of way):

--------------

Misconceptions

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

The 'Missing Link'

A popular term to designate transitional forms with is "the missing link". The term is especially used in the regular media, but inaccurate and confusing. This is partly because it implies that there was a single link missing to complete the picture, which now has been discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil (more commonly known as "Lucy") is seen as a key transitional fossil.

The discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), etc. are also vital to the study of links.

-----------------

Out of curiosity, how do any of you non-evolutionists explain away those last few chaps?
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
HovitosKing said:
Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered.
I read this before, and noticed a tinge of regret that so few "links" have been found. 100-million-year-old dinosaur bones, we got plenty, but where are the 4-million-year-old Hominins? I'm sure you think I don't wanna see any... I do. I'm a gap creationist.

The slight differences between species in the Homo genus can be chalked up to natural selection, not evoluiton. Humans are capable of vast change depending on where they live. Insular drarfism, for example. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals interbred... but according to Gould the others were too busy turning into one another?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I think this topic is starting to fray a bit, migrating away from the original intent of the topic, that being Jesus' bones. See, all the rest of this (evoloution, science, ad hominim attacks etc) is irrelevent if just a few simple truths can be determined.

HoKi touched on it in this post:
What do scientists gain by convincing people to accept evolution? What do Christians gain by convincing people otherwise?

I think the argument to the validity of the bones/tomb in question should be reasoned from his stance above. But don't stray, or the answer won't find you.
 
Already done, handily.

That your only response is the net equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALA" only supports that.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Already done, handily.
Not by a long shot. To finish out the Josephus thought, Josephus would logically have felt the need to more specifically address the identity of Jesus in his second mention if he hadn't established it in the first. Ergo, the "Christian revisionism" claim holds precious little water.
 
and that's why this thread is the equivalent of pissing up a rope.

Or a ping pong game...

Doc S is presented with facts
Doc S says "no it's not"
Doc S is presented with more facts
Doc S says again, "no it's not"

But the atheists are the ones who are close-minded....

The hat sale yesterday was sucky....

Today, I'll be at the James Randi Educational Foundation.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Doc S is presented with facts
Doc S says "no it's not"
Doc S is presented with more facts
Doc S says again, "no it's not"
You're starting to remind me of Fezzini. And what you presented weren't facts, they were opinions. Find me someone who sat next to Flavius Josephus as he wrote Antiquities and I'll take that as fact.
ClintonHammond said:
But the atheists are the ones who are close-minded....
"All generalizations are untrue, including this one." (2 points if you can identify the quote) I never said they were close-minded...I said they were misinformed.
ClintonHammond said:
The hat sale yesterday was sucky....
Sorry to hear that. What were you looking for? Do you have an Akubra?
ClintonHammond said:
Today, I'll be at the James Randi Educational Foundation.
I like Randi...especially since he busted Peter Popoff.

Bottom line, even atheists and agnostics are criticizing Cameron's mockumentary as unscientific. Just more pandering for a jolt of popularity by means of an ill-considered contraversy.
 
"Find me someone who sat next to Flavius Josephus as he wrote Antiquities and I'll take that as fact."

You were the one who wanted to use his writing as support. The fact is, it's not in support of your assertion, because it only appears to support your assertion because it's been doctored to appear that way.
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
You were the one who wanted to use his writing as support. The fact is, it's not in support of your assertion, because it only appears to support your assertion because it's been doctored to appear that way.
You're asserting that it's been doctored. That has never been conclusively (or even remotely) proven. As things lay, it is in the document, so it is admissable.
 
Top