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

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

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

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

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

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

there you go again misrepresenting my posts. I did answer some of your questions and brought up a very viable point about the dna code supporting creationism.

Show me the questions you answered. While you posted an assertion that DNA code supports creationism, you didn't say how or why. Your assertions are worthless.

And my points about the total lack of transitional fossils,(which, by the way, is admitted to by numerous anthropogist museum directors. I can supply you with names if you’d like).

Coyoteman has already blown your claim about a lack of transitionals. There are mountains of evidence, but you're going to hand-wave everything away, aren't you? My point about your being uninterested in debate stands.

If your "numerous anthropologist museum directors" is Colin Patterson, you better google his name first. His quotes have been taken out of context and willfully distorted by numerous creationist apologists. Patterson, while he was still alive, responded to the lies and distortions, but they continue as though he'd never addressed them. It's one of the reasons I have such little respect for creationists; they need to resort to blatant distortion to pretend they have a point.

I don’t know how to debate someone as confusing as you, you’re not intellectually honest and I’m sure that comes from your predjudice towards the creationist theory. Hope you wake up out of your “knowledge” ego trip.

I doubt that it's a matter of an inability to debate someone "as confusing as" I. It appears to be more of an inability to debate at all.

In what ways am I intellectually dishonest?

For your convenience, here's the list of questions I've asked you:

In post 32, I asked you to name the holes in the TOE. You’ve failed to name any. (Addendum: You've attempted to tell us that DNA does not support evolution, but have failed to say how. Interestingly, for you to be right, the scientists who work in the field must be wrong. Please explain what they've missed. You've also denied any transitionals. Coyoteman has provided them. Looks like you're batting .000).

In that same post, I also asked you how these alleged holes would support another theory. So far, no response. (Addendum: You've asserted that DNA somehow supports creationism. Aside from being an argument from astonishment -- a logical fallacy -- you've posted nothing).

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

In that same post, I also asked you how you would go about disproving creationism or ID. You’ve never responded. (Addendum: Being able to disprove a theory is what makes it scientific. Just in case someone reading this was confused by it).

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

Here are two others from the post that first contained the above list. You've never answered them, either.

Do you think scientists named the different quarks by tasting them?"

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

fabian: And my points about the total lack of transitional fossils,(which, by the way, is admitted to by numerous anthropogist museum directors. I can supply you with names if you’d like).

atlaw: I'd like.

I know I'm off topic with this, but here are a few links discussing a total non-lack of transitional fossils, (which, by the way, agrees with what numerous anthropologist -- and other -- museum directors say when their quotes aren't being distorted by creationist websites).

This link discusses the issue of creation "science" and transitional fossils directly. Sample quote:

In summary, the paleontologic record displays numerous sequences of transitional fossils, oriented appropriately within the independently derivable geochronologic time framework, and morphologically and chronologically connecting earlier species with later species (often so different that the end-members are classified in different high-rank taxa). These sequences quite overwhelmingly support an evolutionary, rather than a fiat-creationist, view of the history of life. Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted by special creative acts, and producing successive different species which eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute new major kinds of organisms.

This quote directly contradicts "the total lack of transitional fossils."

Here's a specific discussion of whether the fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution or creationism. A quote from the conclusion:

Evolution and “scientific creation” are two explanations that explain the diversification of life on earth. The evidence I have presented allows us to test these hypotheses by applying deductive logic (Popper, 1968). In the case of evolution, we predict that the fossil record should contain at least some examples of transitional fossils, and a definable succession of taxa. Indeed, it does. Therefore, we can say that evolution is corroborated and not contradicted.
In the case of “scientific creation,” we predict that the fossil record should provide evidence for the contemporaneity of all taxa, no faunal succession, no transitional fossils, and that the rock record should provide evidence for a young age of the earth and a “great flood.” The examples discussed herein, as well as the rest of the fossil and rock record, constitute a massive volume of data that contradicts all the predictions of “scientific creation.”

This is a discussion of horse evolution. It has a link titled "Simpson Rejected Horse Evolution?" It's an example of exactly the sort of distortion I've been posting about.

At this site, near the bottom of the page, one finds a list of creationist distortions of Darwin and others.

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record is another must-ignore link for creationists.

Have fun.

In my own defense, I did say the previous post was off-topic. But I thought your point was interesting, so here are some anthropologists who are also museum directors. Alas for fabian's assertion, none of them appears to deny evolution, although I'm sure a tasty quote salad could be prepared that would purport to show otherwise.

UPenn. Here's a paragraph from the site (bolding mine):

The program includes the four subfields of anthropology, cultural/social anthropology, including ethnography/ethnology; biological/physical anthropology, including paleopathology, primate studies, human evolution, human growth, nutrition, epidemiology, and other aspects of medical anthropology; anthropological linguistics; and archaeology, with special emphasis on prehistoric archaeology, methodology, and ancillary archaeomaterials disciplines, such as chemistry and physics. Medieval archaeology is seen as part of history. Other areas of interest are: urban anthropology, ethnographic art, computer applications, and the history of anthropology. Although study and teaching are supported at the B.A. level, the emphasis is placed on teaching and research at the M.A., M.S., Ph.D., and post-doctoral levels.

How about The Cleveland Museum of Natural History? Given this quote from the site, "During his Museum career, Latimer has earned an international reputation as a physical anthropologist and is recognized as an authority on the evolution of human locomotion. His research has helped shape our present understanding of the evolutionary processes that led to the ability of humans to walk upright on two feet," it seems unlikely that Dr. Latimer is an evolution doubter. (Bolding mine)

The New Mexico State University Faculty lists the following,

Ed Staski: Dr. Edward Staski is Professor of Anthropology and Director of the University Museum. His current research includes continuing archaeological investigations along El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, one of the earliest long-distance trails established by Europeans in North America. As University Museum Director, Dr. Staski's major projects include raising grant and other monies to increase support for research and teaching activities at the Museum, various building improvements, bringing the Museum into compliance with NAGPRA, and better organizing and protecting Museum collections.

Interestingly, the "Ed Staski" link goes to his bio, which includes this (bolding mine): "Dr. Staski is an historical archaeologist who is interested in ethnic relations, overseas Chinese peoples, the 19th century American frontier, and human evolution."

Interestingly, the same NMSU faculty site also lists the following(All bolding mine):

Brenda Benefit: Dr. Benefit is a biological anthropologist focusing on the evolution of Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene catarrhine primates (Old World monkeys and apes) in Africa, paleoecology, dental variation, and dental correlates of diet (including functional morphology and enamel microwear) in living and fossil primates.
Monte McCrossin: Dr. McCrossin is a biological anthropologist whose interests include the following topics: fossil evidence for human evolution; paleoanthropology of Africa (study of human origins that comes from integration of evidence from biological anthropology and paleolithic archaeology); the ecology, behavior, and adaptive history of non-human primates; dietary and locomotor adaptations; paleoecology.

and

Wenda Trevathan: Dr. Trevathan is a biological anthropologist concerned with childbirth, medical anthropology, nutritional anthropology, human sexuality, and human evolution.

Here's a site for Carnegie Magazine. It introduces the curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Bill DeWalt, an anthropologist. He's quoted as follows (bolding mine):

When asked what philosophy should guide a natural history museum, De Walt says: "I think it has two main scientific charters: ecology and evolution. We’re here to help people understand biodiversity and cultural diversity as they are revealed throughout history and ongoing scientific research. When someone visits a natural history museum, they should walk away with a better understanding of the diversity of our natural and human resources."

I eagerly await a list of anthropologist museum directors who reject the Theory of Evolution.

I did make a good point about creationism and how it related to the dna code. You can believe it is worthless but it shows that you are really missing the ability to reason.
And I am not your student, here to answer all of the questions you pose to me. I answer what I see fit and did answer the huge question of the missing transtitionals. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer your question. Is it not obvious that if macro evolution did not occur as the fossil evidence shows, then man and animals were created? The very falseness of toe by itself points to creationism. Actually, I believe that God could have easily created man through evolution if He choose to but the facts don’t support that. There are so many other facts of creation science that are amazing but I don’t know if you are interested. You simply want to make me look wrong even in the face of some good points. And I wonder why the proposed transitional skulls posted by coyoteman don’t have all of the other bones needed? The fossil record, if it showed the clear transitionals in the thousands which would obviously be there if toe were true, would have stopped the debate long ago. I wonder why there are many reputable scientists who once believed toe and now say that it is false and are proponents of creationism? Perhaps I have made some very valid points but in your close minded haughtyness you are content in just trying to ridicule me and make yourself feel like the winner. Too much ego and not enough earnestness for the truth.

I answer what I see fit and did answer the huge question of the missing transtitionals. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer your question. Is it not obvious that if macro evolution did not occur as the fossil evidence shows, then man and animals were created?

You ignored my post #43, upthread. That demolished your argument that there are no transitionals. But that's normal; creationists have been ignoring the evidence for years.

The very falseness of toe by itself points to creationism.

Your belief that the theory of evolution is false does not constitute scientific evidence. (Hey, that might make a good tagline!)

Actually, I believe that God could have easily created man through evolution if He choose to but the facts don’t support that. There are so many other facts of creation science that are amazing but I don’t know if you are interested. You simply want to make me look wrong even in the face of some good points. And I wonder why the proposed transitional skulls posted by coyoteman don’t have all of the other bones needed?

Really? You have studied evolution and know what is, and what is not, in the fossil record? Or did you just check into AnswersInGenesis? Or stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? (My guess is that you have not actually studied the fossil record. I have, during a number of years of graduate school.)

The fossil record, if it showed the clear transitionals in the thousands which would obviously be there if toe were true, would have stopped the debate long ago. I wonder why there are many reputable scientists who once believed toe and now say that it is false and are proponents of creationism?

There is clear evidence for transitionals. I posted some in post #43. You ignored it.

You bring up "reputable scientists who once believed toe and now say that it is false?" That's easy. They became creationists, and turned their backs on the scientific method.

Here is a good example. The Creation Research Society has the following on their website [emphasis added]:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.

what you are doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water..these scientists believe the Bible but in many cases their scientific study has brought them to that belief. One does in no way dismiss the other. I don’t understand why you demand a complete separation of religion and science when they both point to each other.

When one accepts scripture as the absolute truth one has abandoned the scientific method. You can argue all you want, but you can't get around the fact that belief in revelation/scripture is a different method than the scientific method. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. (Hey, there's a good tagline in there somewhere!)

And those “transitionals” are simply a collection of skulls without the accompanied other bones needed. Various human and ape skulls. Pure speculation on your part.

False.

Who ever told you that the skulls are without any accompanying bones? It is simply not true. This is why I suggested you had not studied the fossil record, but had just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Or googled up AnswersInGenesis.

For every nice skull, there are many other body parts. And for every nice skull, there are thousands of related fossils of fauna and flora. And the geological record.

And they are various human and ape skulls? Great, but creationists can't agree on which is which! Some place various skulls as human while others place them as apes. Maybe, just maybe, that is because they have the characteristics of both. They are transitionals!

I am afraid that you have accepted a false teaching and cling to it for dear life when in reality you are missing out on true wonderful scientific discoveries.

Sorry, not true. I do science for a living, and I am involved in "wonderful scientific discoveries." But I do not arrive at these by abandoning the scientific method in favor of religious belief. (Hey, there's a good tagline in there somewhere!)

I did make a good point about creationism and how it related to the dna code. You can believe it is worthless but it shows that you are really missing the ability to reason.

Afraid not. You post assertions, and these do not add up to points. If there's a paucity of reasoning ability in this thread, you're the one whose provided it.

And I am not your student, here to answer all of the questions you pose to me.

Well isn't that convenient! I thought you were the one who wanted a debate. Now you're refusing to take part. It's enough to make people think you really don't want a debate at all -- you just want your opinion accepted blindly.

In any case, the questions are not questions for a student, they're questions any rational theory or theorist would be expected to answer, especially when engaging in an ardently desired debate. That you can't answer them, or refuse to, demonstrates the worthlessness of your posts.

I answer what I see fit and did answer the huge question of the missing transtitionals.

LOL! Yeah ... you just don't see fit to answer the parts requiring scientific knowledge.

Your nonsensical statement about transitionals was another assertion on your part, and a patently false one. You seem to think you've made some sort of point about transitionals because you've denied they exist. Did you bother reading Coyoteman's post 43 or my post 65? I doubt it. Did you click on any of the links in my post 65? I doubt that, too. Why not demonstrate how these transitionals are not transitionals instead of just saying they're not.

Because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer your question.

Again, your assertion, "There's nothing there," is worthless. You've failed spectacularly to respond to the evidence. If you weren't serious (I've abandoned my idea that you've been kidding), it would be laugh-out-loud funny.

Is it not obvious that if macro evolution did not occur as the fossil evidence shows, then man and animals were created?

No.

The very falseness of toe by itself points to creationism.

You haven't presented any evidence that the TOE might be false. Even if it were, that would mean nothing with regard to creationism. You're now attempting to present a false dichotomy: if not the TOE, then creationsm. (Whose creation story then? There are many out there to chose from). It hasn't worked in the past, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future.

Actually, I believe that God could have easily created man through evolution if He choose to but the facts don’t support that.

Which facts? You've provided none! Coyoteman and I have provided many facts supporting the TOE. Whether God used the TOE has no bearing on the facts.

There are so many other facts of creation science that are amazing but I don’t know if you are interested.

There is not doubt in my mind whatever that "creation science" has many, many "amazing" "facts."

You simply want to make me look wrong even in the face of some good points.

I'm not making you "look" wrong, you are wrong all by yourself.

And I wonder why the proposed transitional skulls posted by coyoteman don’t have all of the other bones needed?

Why do you assume they don't?

The fossil record, if it showed the clear transitionals in the thousands which would obviously be there if toe were true, would have stopped the debate long ago.

They're there. The evidence is overwhelming, and it's not just fossil evidence. In a rational world, the debate would be over. Alas, it's clear that we don't live in a rational world.

I wonder why there are many reputable scientists who once believed toe and now say that it is false and are proponents of creationism?

Here we go again. You previously promised to supply us with that list. It still hasn't materialized. You also threatened to provide us with this list, "And my points about the total lack of transitional fossils,(which, by the way, is admitted to by numerous anthropogist[sic] museum directors. I can supply you with names if you’d like)," remember? You haven't supplied those, either. Go back and take a look at post 69, as long as you're ignoring the substance of what we're posting. It has a few names of museum directors who are anthropologists who have no trouble at all with the TOE, and who, in fact, use it in their work.

Perhaps I have made some very valid points but in your close minded haughtyness[sic] you are content in just trying to ridicule me and make yourself feel like the winner. Too much ego and not enough earnestness for the truth.

You've made assertions, not points. As to ego and the like, take a look in the mirror.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.