The Energon Pub

Kjell wrote:I was under the impression that they call it the "theory of evolution" not because it proposes that evolution takes place, but rather because it attempts to explain how it happens. "Theory" in this context means the numbers behind something. The, well, theory! The on-paper stuff, you know. Like with mathematical theory.

Also, a succesful theory is not proven. It is merely never disproven. When you test a theory you check for all the things where it doesn't fit. Otherwise you might go on and only look for things where it would fit and that's not very good testing.


Quite how life started is understandably fuzzy, but evolution itself has been witnessed. Look at dogs. And all the bacteria that have developed undesirable resistances.

Quite specifically, a theory in science denotes a... well... evolving model of a confirmed process and its supporting data. Evolutionary theory specifically correlates to evolution, a confirmed process, in the same way that gravitational theory denotes the models concerning gravity.

EDIT: And, yes, it is "gravitational theory." "The Law of Gravity" is a rather boldly-titled book by Sir Isaac Newton on the subject.

Loki120 wrote:It all seems to be a war of words and people's fuzzy defintion between fact and theory. There's a reason that things are classified as theory, such as evolution and creation, because they will never be 100 percent certain that this is indeed fact. When people have an "idea" on how life came about on earth, it's a theory, because there's no real way to actually prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt. Anyone who says evolution is a fact isn't a true scientist, nor are they intelligent enough to understand why that isn't so.
Now don't get me wrong, there can be strong and compelling evidence to "prove" a certain theory is the correct one, but in all honesty can we ever be sure? Never.
After all that, then it all comes down to the war between religion and "other", believe me there's just as much smack being talked between both sides as to who is the biggest idiot.

I hope the point you are raising isn't that just because you can't prove 100% absolutely with no room for error that evolution is a fact, that somehow undermines it, or makes creationism equally valid.
Comparing evolution with creationism (or creationism's modern reworded version: intelligent design), is like comparing two theories on the moon. One theory states that the moon is esentailly a large rock in space which orbits the Earth. The other states that the moon is made of green cheese and is held in the sky with a magical sky-hook. One is scienctific theory based on evidence, while the other is based on a fairy story that people would like to believe in but has nothing to do with what's going on in the real world. We can't 100% prove that the moon is made of rock but in the same way that be can't 100% prove that it isn't made of green cheese.
They are not equal theories.

EDIT: In fact calling both evolution and creationism theories, is misleading as although the word theory is applied to both, it is different meanings of the word which apply to each

OED definition of a theory which applies to evolution:

OED wrote:A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

OED definition of theory which applies to creationism:

OED wrote:In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

I personally entertain two important questions:

A) If creationism is a theory, what predictions can be made by it?

B) Similarly, what things can it rule out?

High Command wrote:

Loki120 wrote:It all seems to be a war of words and people's fuzzy defintion between fact and theory. There's a reason that things are classified as theory, such as evolution and creation, because they will never be 100 percent certain that this is indeed fact. When people have an "idea" on how life came about on earth, it's a theory, because there's no real way to actually prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt. Anyone who says evolution is a fact isn't a true scientist, nor are they intelligent enough to understand why that isn't so.
Now don't get me wrong, there can be strong and compelling evidence to "prove" a certain theory is the correct one, but in all honesty can we ever be sure? Never.
After all that, then it all comes down to the war between religion and "other", believe me there's just as much smack being talked between both sides as to who is the biggest idiot.

I hope the point you are raising isn't that just because you can't prove 100% absolutely with no room for error that evolution is a fact, that somehow undermines it, or makes creationism equally valid.
Comparing evolution with creationism (or creationism's modern reworded version: intelligent design), is like comparing two theories on the moon. One theory states that the moon is esentailly a large rock in space which orbits the Earth. The other states that the moon is made of green cheese and is held in the sky with a magical sky-hook. One is scienctific theory based on evidence, while the other is based on a fairy story that people would like to believe in but has nothing to do with what's going on in the real world. We can't 100% prove that the moon is made of rock but in the same way that be can't 100% prove that it isn't made of green cheese.
They are not equal theories.

EDIT: In fact calling both evolution and creationism theories, is misleading as although the word theory is applied to both, it is different meanings of the word which apply to each

OED definition of a theory which applies to evolution:

OED wrote:A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

OED definition of theory which applies to creationism:

OED wrote:In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Your statements are wrong on so many levels. The moon being made of green cheese isn't a theory. Your comparison is weak at best. The reference to the word theory being misleading is absurd as you just defined theory in your post. Please prove without any measure of doubt that evolution happens. Every instance of evolution supposed is all based on speculation. Nobody to this day has ANY hard evidence that evolution occurs as it is all speculation. I for one personally don't believe in creationism but can't positively rule anything out as I can't prove anything. Just because peoples blood types, bone structure or any other myriad of similarities occur interspecies cannot prove the proposed mechanisms of evolution. The way I have read the definitions stated the 2nd applies to both as both(evolution;creationism) are mere hypothesis, speculation and conjecture. Both being an individuals' view or notion.

High Command wrote:I hope the point you are raising isn't that just because you can't prove 100% absolutely with no room for error that evolution is a fact, that somehow undermines it, or makes creationism equally valid.
Comparing evolution with creationism (or creationism's modern reworded version: intelligent design), is like comparing two theories on the moon. One theory states that the moon is esentailly a large rock in space which orbits the Earth. The other states that the moon is made of green cheese and is held in the sky with a magical sky-hook. One is scienctific theory based on evidence, while the other is based on a fairy story that people would like to believe in but has nothing to do with what's going on in the real world. We can't 100% prove that the moon is made of rock but in the same way that be can't 100% prove that it isn't made of green cheese.
They are not equal theories.

Of course it undermines it, because it can't be proven. Unless someone comes up with a time travel pod and witnesses it as hard evidence, it will never be proven to be fact. Just as one can prove that God is indeed a fairy tale. What evidence is there that disproves God. Absolutely none. Just because there is certain "evidence" which tends to lean in favor of one theory over another doesn't make the one fact.

And as pointed out, you're comparison is flawed on so many levels. One, we already know that the moon is made of rock. We've been there, we've brought evidence back. As soon as the evidence pointed out that the moon is indeed not made of green cheese, the theory that the moon is made of rock is no longer a theory, but fact. I've seen no evidence that proves with 100% certainty that evolution is the cause of humanity on Earth (there's strong evidence which points us in that direction), just as there is no evidence that proves with 100% certainty that creationism didn't indeed happen. Personal atheism aside, a good scientist doesn't discount something because they have personal feelings to the contrary.

DISCHARGE wrote:

High Command wrote:

Loki120 wrote:It all seems to be a war of words and people's fuzzy defintion between fact and theory. There's a reason that things are classified as theory, such as evolution and creation, because they will never be 100 percent certain that this is indeed fact. When people have an "idea" on how life came about on earth, it's a theory, because there's no real way to actually prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt. Anyone who says evolution is a fact isn't a true scientist, nor are they intelligent enough to understand why that isn't so.
Now don't get me wrong, there can be strong and compelling evidence to "prove" a certain theory is the correct one, but in all honesty can we ever be sure? Never.After all that, then it all comes down to the war between religion and"other", believe me there's just as much smack being talked between both sides as to who is the biggest idiot.

I hope the point you are raising isn't that just because you can't prove 100% absolutely with no room for error that evolution is a fact, that somehow undermines it, or makes creationism equally valid.
Comparing evolution with creationism (or creationism's modern reworded version: intelligent design), is like comparing two theories on the moon. One theory states that the moon is esentailly a large rock in space which orbits the Earth. The other states that the moon is made of green cheese and is held in the sky with a magical sky-hook. One is scienctific theory based on evidence, while the other is based on a fairy story that people would like to believe in but has nothing to do with what's going on in the real world. We can't 100% prove that the moon is made of rock but in the same way that be can't 100% prove that it isn't made of green cheese.
They are not equal theories.

EDIT: In fact calling both evolution and creationism theories, is misleading as although the word theory is applied to both, it is different meanings of the word which apply to each

OED definition of a theory which applies to evolution:

OED wrote:A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

OED definition of theory which applies to creationism:

OED wrote:In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Your statements are wrong on so many levels. The moon being made of green cheese isn't a theory. Your comparison is weak at best. The reference to the word theory being misleading is absurd as you just defined theory in your post. Please prove without any measure of doubt that evolution happens. Every instance of evolution supposed is all based on speculation. Nobody to this day has ANY hard evidence that evolution occurs as it is all speculation. I for one personally don't believe in creationism but can't positively rule anything out as I can't prove anything. Just because peoples blood types, bone structure or any other myriad of similarities occur interspecies cannot prove the proposed mechanisms of evolution. The way I have read the definitions stated the 2nd applies to both as both(evolution;creationism) are mere hypothesis, speculation and conjecture. Both being an individuals' view or notion.

First, proving anything "beyond a doubt" is impossible, (see Cartesian doubt). You are being irrational by demanding an impossibility. If anything, one can only show high probability for the existence of anything. Simply stating that you can't know anything for certain does not bring all statements to a level field of validity.

One does not take up any statement merely since it cannot be disproven-- one inherently cannot prove a negative. Instead, one always assumes the absence of something until proper evidence surfaces. Such is recognized in our own justice system. You cannot say "You cannot prove he didn't do it, therefore he is guilty." Rather, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to affirm the positive. "Prove he did it," is the proper goal.

Secondly, there are many sources of evidence for evolution, as well as instances and processes evident in out own world, for a short list of first-hand observations...

The constant need to create new vaccines due to the constant changing resistances in bacteria and viruses. You don't need a link for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel
http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2000/Fall ... znick.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 01_mussels
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm

I personally think you should read what exactly evolution is(Clicking on "introduction to evolution" can be especially helpful), as well as properly examine HC's point-- the 2 differences in the scientific and common usage of 'theory' are pretty different. One provides a built-up model based upon collected data and reaffirmed by constant experience and testing. The other suggests a simple, untested guess that has not undergone rigorous testing, nor necessarilly relies on facts. You are mistaken on your assumption.

Man, I love having the debates back!

EDIT: And, Loki, I do believe I pretty much addressed yours in this post as well. Ideas are not discounted because of the bias of the scientist, but for the absence of evidence. If an idea gathers the given baggage, it can be seriously considered.

The existence of evolution and Creationism Do fit into the second parameter as both of them are still confined to the expression of speculation. Wikipedia showed me nothing to discredit this. It did although push forward the idea of survival of the fittest, which can in itself be considered a form of psuedoevolution. EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. It is still an idea pressed forth by scientists who wish to release a theory as to the existence of man and life, and how it came to be. Creationism is pushed forth to the forefront for religious types who have so much faith they can't see past that to formulate a more cohesive thought pattern for the existence of life. Man in general. OED wrote:
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Evolution is not held to be a general law, principle or cause of something known or observed.
It IS speculation of non-creationists and many scientist worldwide.
Your statement of proving anything as impossible is false:
1) I theorize the pencil I hold in my hand is made of wood.
O.K. I'll send it to the scientist
Oh!! What do you know? It's made of wood.
2) I theorize the ocean contains certain mineral, chemicals and varying compositions that support certain life but not others. *tosses shark in ocean. It swims away and lives.*
*Tosses squirrel into ocean. Swims for a while,gets tired, drowns.*
Those are 2 example, stupid as they are that would not be impossible to prove.

The fossil records in the Wikipedia eluded to pseudogenes as the basis for evolution. those still offer no proof that evolution is the original guiding factor for the presence of Man on this planet or the progression of other sentient life. I too would like to believe evolution is the cause and effect of my personal being and I put more faith in that than an intelligent designer. But there are people out there who feel just as strongly that design by an omnipotent player is indeed the basis of life.
What I do care about is that I am here. And those just may be the bones of a historical person known as the Jesus Christ uncovered in that tomb. We may never know for sure.

DISCHARGE wrote:The existence of evolution and Creationism Do fit into the second parameter as both of them are still confined to the expression of speculation. Wikipedia showed me nothing to discredit this. It did although push forward the idea of survival of the fittest, which can in itself be considered a form of psuedoevolution. EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. It is still an idea pressed forth by scientists who wish to release a theory as to the existence of man and life, and how it came to be. Creationism is pushed forth to the forefront for religious types who have so much faith they can't see past that to formulate a more cohesive thought pattern for the existence of life. Man in general. OED wrote:
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Evolution is not held to be a general law, principle or cause of something known or observed.
It IS speculation of non-creationists and many scientist worldwide.
Your statement of proving anything as impossible is false:
1) I theorize the pencil I hold in my hand is made of wood.
O.K. I'll send it to the scientist
Oh!! What do you know? It's made of wood.
2) I theorize the ocean contains certain mineral, chemicals and varying compositions that support certain life but not others. *tosses shark in ocean. It swims away and lives.*
*Tosses squirrel into ocean. Swims for a while,gets tired, drowns.*
Those are 2 example, stupid as they are that would not be impossible to prove.

The fossil records in the Wikipedia eluded to pseudogenes as the basis for evolution. those still offer no proof that evolution is the original guiding factor for the presence of Man on this planet or the progression of other sentient life. I too would like to believe evolution is the cause and effect of my personal being and I put more faith in that than an intelligent designer. But there are people out there who feel just as strongly that design by an omnipotent player is indeed the basis of life.
What I do care about is that I am here. And those just may be the bones of a historical person known as the Jesus Christ uncovered in that tomb. We may never know for sure.

Read the first sentence of this link, which I have already provided. It is change in characteristics, genes, in a population of organisms. It has been observed, and is inherent in that creatures and their population's gene ratios change over time, shown by the conditions for genetic equilibrium. It is the model explaining it and the scope for explanation it inhabits that changes. Whether you acknowledge it or not, the process exists in one form or another in our world, though exactly how and what extent are still in debate. Any more, and I will be repeating myself.

I believe what you are actually debating is universal common descent, a theory concerning evolution. Common descent on a limited level is observed in the breeding of dogs (among many other instances), but the total linkage of all life on earth as a single family tree can not as of current.

And read CARTESIAN DOUBT-- no matter how much proof, there is, there will always be a certain degree of doubt upon the true reality. It has bee discussed here with the 7:30 argument and many others, but it seems you have only been here for a short time, so consider a discription of a musing of Descartes on the subject:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1350/essays/doubt.html wrote:Surely there are cases when we can distinctly perceive the data we are being provided with. Descartes himself provides the example of his sitting by his desk beside the fire, writing on a piece of paper, and wearing his dressing-gown. He can feel the heat from the flames, see the paper, and so on. This Descartes takes as being indicative of the most favourable conditions for the senses supplying us with correct data as they are being used in favourable conditions. If it can be shown that what he believes on the basis of what appear to be favourable conditions is false, then all the other sensory data he receives must also be false. If the best candidate for a job is rejected, then all the lesser candidates must also be rejected.
Is Descartes able to find fault with what he believes to be the case here, i.e. that he is sitting by the fire writing? Initially, he suggests that to object to this being the case would be mad, as if he were a pauper who insanely said that he was a king. On further reflection though, he can indeed find fault, for he acknowledges that he is in the habit of sleeping and often has dreams, many of which include representations of objects from his waking life. How is he to determine that he is not at this moment sleeping, yet at the same time dreaming that he is sitting by the fire writing?
It seems that in order to know that he is sitting by the fire, he must first of all know that he is not dreaming that he is sitting by the fire, for if he does not know this, then he cannot make any judgements about what is happening because, for all he can tell, all his sensory experiences to date could be dreams about real life situations. In other words, he must be able to distinguish waking from sleeping. Descartes discovers that he cannot do this, and is forced to conclude that he knows nothing about the world because he is unable to rule out the possibility that everything he receives from his senses is no more than a dream.

We can never truly know, but continue to be best of our abilities and assume as best we can as to avoid madness.

In theory, genetic equilibrium is a state in which a population is not evolving.-Wiki

How am I to respond to this. It states that there is no motion and evolution is not occurring. And if evolution is not occurring, what proof is there that evolution has occurred?

For evolution to ignite, the DNA must mutate and the DNA of all future offspring must carry on with the mutation in a manner allowing that species to continue to thrive. Now intelligence and longevity can possibly be attributed to evolution. Where humans are living longer and are more widely versed than long ago. But I would accredit this to society more than a restructuring of DNA. Now I fully believe that current humans are possibly descended from say homo erectus and the ilk much in the way dogs are interbred. Much like when different races of human breed you will end up with something new. Cosmetically. Internally there appears to be no change. I think we need to start creating abominations of nature through interspecies breeding and see what we can come up with. Can we force evolution to promote itself. Until people are ready for that we will only have the speculation of natural or unnatural evolution.

AAAhhhhhh crap!! I missed the Simpsons.

DISCHARGE wrote:In theory, genetic equilibrium is a state in which a population is not evolving.-Wiki

How am I to respond to this. It states that there is no motion and evolution is not occurring. And if evolution is not occurring, what proof is there that evolution has occurred?

For evolution to ignite, the DNA must mutate and the DNA of all future offspring must carry on with the mutation in a manner allowing that species to continue to thrive. Now intelligence and longevity can possibly be attributed to evolution. Where humans are living longer and are more widely versed than long ago. But I would accredit this to society more than a restructuring of DNA. Now I fully believe that current humans are possibly descended from say homo erectus and the ilk much in the way dogs are interbred. Much like when different races of human breed you will end up with something new. Cosmetically. Internally there appears to be no change. I think we need to start creating abominations of nature through interspecies breeding and see what we can come up with. Can we force evolution to promote itself. Until people are ready for that we will only have the speculation of natural or unnatural evolution.

AAAhhhhhh crap!! I missed the Simpsons.

Genetic equilibrium is specifically one way to argue evolution by saying what has to be present for it to not occur, by saying their has to be all of the given circumstances in order to have no change in a population. As all of them usually aren't present at once, then evolution will usually happen in a given gene pool.

However, evolution does not require the changed genetics to be useful-- just to change and add new characteristics to a given gene pool to be passed on is biological evolution, and solar radiation does that easily enough to e. coli bacteria.

Don't really get much of the rest of your post, though think we may now have some mutual understanding, and I am in favor of synthetic genesis through actually creating new DNA codes for which a blank cell to follow.

I had never stated that i didn't believe in evolution in one form or another. I was just trying to argue that the creationism theory was as equally fought for on the side of the religious as it is by the evolutionists. So many people are jaded by what they believe that they don't stop to look over the fence and listen to what the neighbor has to say, Much less respect it. I think my whole argument stemmed from the reference that Jesus was equated to a zombie and no matter how much I don't believe I have the level of respect for another's faith to not disrespect them by turning ones symbol of hope into a monster. A level of maturity should be upheld and not turn something into hate speech and mongering.

Since I've given up complaining for Lent I've got to make this short and not so ranty, but essentially, when I heard this I thought.

What. A. Load. Of. Bullocks.

Jesus, Mary, and the other such names found etched on this were very common. SOmeone's probably mentioned this, I didn't have time to read the whole thing, they said on the news that already 900 tombs with that combination of names has been found since that time period.

Secondly, I mean, really, is God going to come down to earth now and say "Oh, here you go, some Jesus' DNA for you to test with, you can cross match it to the big wooden T you nailed him too".

This situation would be like if 100 years from now some guy found the grave of "John Smith". Which John Smith? Oh, you know, that guy who lived on Loadacrap St?

The other thought I had in regards, if Jesus isn't the son of God, and he was just some schmoo, then would his disciples really burry him somewhere that could be easily found if they wanted to spread a myth about his divinity and rising from the grave?

Basically, this "find" isn't going to make me denouce my faith anytime soon, I want more then this speck of crap.

My nose is so itchy at the moment.

Ok, I went on here to see what the hell is going on with this Jesus talk, and the whole thread is about if or not it was Jesus and down to evolution.

Well, I was raise catholic but I don't believe in organized religion, for countless reasons, still I have to put my common sense and logic, to say it's a bit shaddy to know for sure if the body is Jesus. Until someday God, will send us a small miracle to show us the truth of it all. Maybe He is reaching to humanity somehow? That, I don't know.

But let's say it really is Jesus's body found, the question is more, if it really is him, what does it mean? I think maybe there is life after death, and Jesus was the first ghost to fly to the heavens? All these years, mankind as been looking for life after death, maybe there is one? A small message that your soul exsists?

I heard that for the name of Mary, probably at least a quarter of the women were named that.
Jesus was probably a common name. Even now Hispanics name their kids that. Does that make the person named that into God's Son just because he shares the same name? With evolution, many people hundreds of years ago though the sun revolved around the earth. The things they saw at the time, and what they used to measure this, seemed to confirm it. Until somebody came up with new mathamatics and new instruments, and disproved it for something else. What I'm saying is, evolution right now might seem like a possible idea, but when better instuments to measure something are created, it might be disproven for something else. I'm not for or against evolution, it just seems to be a scientific pattern.

Well fellow Christians you'll be glad to know its not Jesus tomb so have fun everyone.

You know, this is bullshit.. nobody has the dna of Jesus Christ..

You know I have to ask how many of you paid atention or even saw the documentary.

I saw someone earlier in this thread say to "get you facts strait" (I should point out that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were aparently incapeable of doing so) so yes lets do so.

"Jesus was burid in a differn't tomb in a differn' part of the city"
A tomb from witch, acording to both the bible and Roman record, he went missing. According to Roman record the disciples stole away the body. Of course the Bible coroborates this by stating "the council paid the guards to say that the disciples stole away the body". Odd thing to do since in the Roman army failuer was a "capital" offence.


"Jesus was from a poor family"
And you assume that Mary was as well? We know that, acording to the story of Lazzarus, that her family had several tombs.

"Jesus was never married"
I thought that not only did he keep Hebrew law but that he was without sin. So please explain how he was never married.

"Jesus had no children"
Again I thought he was not a sinner

"These were common name with over 900 tombs in which they have been found"
True and yet not true. The names, save one, have truely been found in over 900 seperate tombs; yet there is only one with this particular combination of names. Intriguing is it not.


Now do I belive that this is the tomb of Jesus? At the moment we don't have enough evidence to say yes or no. What other evidence could be provided you ask? Well I for one would like to know what they found written on the inside of the tomb. I would also like to know who is located in the other nearby tomb.

Jar Axel wrote:You know I have to ask how many of you paid atention or even saw the documentary.

I saw someone earlier in this thread say to "get you facts strait" (I should point out that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were aparently incapeable of doing so) so yes lets do so.

"Jesus was burid in a differn't tomb in a differn' part of the city"
A tomb from witch, acording to both the bible and Roman record, he went missing. According to Roman record the disciples stole away the body. Of course the Bible coroborates this by stating "the council paid the guards to say that the disciples stole away the body". Odd thing to do since in the Roman army failuer was a "capital" offence.


"Jesus was from a poor family"
And you assume that Mary was as well? We know that, acording to the story of Lazzarus, that her family had several tombs.

"Jesus was never married"
I thought that not only did he keep Hebrew law but that he was without sin. So please explain how he was never married.

"Jesus had no children"
Again I thought he was not a sinner

"These were common name with over 900 tombs in which they have been found"
True and yet not true. The names, save one, have truely been found in over 900 seperate tombs; yet there is only one with this particular combination of names. Intriguing is it not.


Now do I belive that this is the tomb of Jesus? At the moment we don't have enough evidence to say yes or no. What other evidence could be provided you ask? Well I for one would like to know what they found written on the inside of the tomb. I would also like to know who is located in the other nearby tomb.

That makes since but man they have already said its not his tomb.I heard it myself.

So consider this thread closed

Who said it was not his tomb?

Jar Axel wrote:Who said it was not his tomb?

"They" said. Yes, the ever powerful "they," nobody knows who "they" are, however, reports seem to lump them in with the mysterious men in black, and sasquatch.

Also, wasn't there some article on how a guy who was in the documentary changed what he meant about the order of the name on the tomb and how it's odd to see that combination of names on that single tomb, or something like that. I'll have to find that article again.

Cyber Bishop wrote:It's all about faith.

You know what I can never figure out is why is everyone always trying to debunk just Christianity and no other religion. Will we ever see a documentary trying to debunk Mohammad? I seriously doubt it.

There are more Muslims on th planet than any other organized religion but no one ever question them and their belief system like this.

There's a new video that's being distributed in my area (gee... imagine that!) debunking the Mormon religion. Does that count?


B-)

.

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards

Utter bullshit; Mr. Kloner made this claim compleatly unsubstantiated by evidence or fact.

The truth: The site was never excavated; It was briefly survied and the sarcofagi were removed and cattaloged. No proper scientific (archialogical or otherwise) investigation was performed because of pressure from the development company to get the site cleared to continue construction.

Jar Axel wrote:

.

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards

Utter bullshit; Mr. Kloner made this claim compleatly unsubstantiated by evidence or fact.

The truth: The site was never excavated; It was briefly survied and the sarcofagi were removed and cattaloged. No proper scientific (archialogical or otherwise) investigation was performed because of pressure from the development company to get the site cleared to continue construction.

Wait, aren't you agreeing with that quote, in the sense that you're both saying that there wasn't proper scientific examination / that it didn't reach acceptable standards?