Gaius Octavius Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 MPC, there are liars, damned liars and then there are statisticians! Remember the joke that was turned into reeganomics? Statistics depends on the valadity of the data put into the formula of ones choice. Garbage in; garbage out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 If the probability of this conjunction occurring due to chance is less than 1/20, it would be accepted by nearly any medical journal in the world. And none of the leading archaeological journals. According to the authors, the chance probability is more like 1/600 You realize these statistics are based on guesses, right? There are no accurate figures for the demographics of the region at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 You realize these statistics are based on guesses, right? There are no accurate figures for the demographics of the region at that time. And when you contacted the statistician involved in the project, what exactly did he tell you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 And when you contacted the statistician involved in the project, what exactly did he tell you? I asked him to let me see his source data, but he wouldn't let me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 I asked him to let me see his source data, but he wouldn't let me. If he did, how would you calculate the odds from the data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) If he did, how would you calculate the odds from the data? Depends on the quality of the data. If it's not sufficient, I wouldn't waste my time. I have no issue with the calculations per se, just interested what they're based on. Edited February 27, 2007 by Maladict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) Why don't they just drop the pretense and say that they don't care about archaeology because they have their faith? At least they'd leave archaeology (and statistics) uncorrupted. They care about archeology as long as it does not conflict with their faith MPC, just as at one time they cared about science as long as it did not coflict with their theology (Galileo ring a bell?) Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to suspend our judgments until we see the programme on the 4th and have a chance to analyse it. I think dismissing it sweepingly without investigating it thoroughly is as foolish as accepting it unconditionally for it's sensation value Edited February 27, 2007 by Gladius xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to suspend our judgments until we see the programme on the 4th and have a chance to analyse it. I think dismissing it sweepingly without investigating it thoroughly is as foolish as accepting it unconditionally for it's sensation value I agree wholeheartedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) I also want to add - even if it is Jesus's sarcophagus they found, it does not logically follow that he was not resurrected. It could very well be that his body was transferred to a different tomb and resurrected from there. I don't really care either way - I don't believe in the resurrection anyway - but I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to offer possibilities from a Christian point of view. So I don't see a real conflict with theology there. As for the marriage part, well, again I don't see what's so scandalous about a man getting married and begetting children. Edited February 28, 2007 by Gladius xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Apostates! Heretics! Reprobates! :alien: :afro: is watching you! :hang: :giljotiini: :nopity: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Sentius Saturninus Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) Well, not log to go before its on TV/Internet. To me it all makes sense anyway...Party leader speaks a bit too freely, causes riots, gets caught by the authorities and is punished. Fair enough. The Party thinks that without their charismatic leader they'll perish so they keep his name alive, they create a few rumours...stories....soon the people are thinking he was more than mortal etc etc. As far as the family tomb in Jerusalem is concerned, he probably made quite a bit of cash out of the odd sermon so he was able to afford a nice tomb for his family... Long Live the Republic. Edited March 2, 2007 by Lucius Sentius Saturninus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) Considering that filmmaker Jacobovici is claiming that an ossuary of James (missing from the tomb since 1980) is in the possession of a slippery Israeli antiques dealer named Oded Golan (who was arrested along with his cohorts and charged in an Israeli court not only for running a forgery ring but for forging the name of "James" on that ossuary), inclines me towards skepticism regarding the "Jesus Tomb". -- Nephele Edited out comment that might provoke a "slip into the danger of using this thread to discuss the internal veracity of Christianity or any other religion." as per Ursus' admonition. Edited March 2, 2007 by Nephele Carnalis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Ave I just watched the programme. It sure is intriguing stuff, but I still think the evidence is too circumstantial. Until they come up with something more substantial I think I'll still reserve my judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Couldn't resist... David Letterman quoted from "The Late Show with David Letterman": "James Cameron thinks that he found the tomb of Jesus Christ. To me, that's very interesting. Who would have guessed that they'd find Jesus before bin Laden?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 N.C. :wub: , beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.