Friday, March 16, 2007

Faulty statistics? What are the odds?

BK over at CADRE Comments has an update on the Talpiot tomb. The first interesting fact is that the Talpiot tomb is not the only known tomb in the vicinity with the names Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, and Jesus. This badly discredits the current claims that finding such names in combination would be incredibly rare, a claim which had already taken a pounding on statistical grounds.

Even more interesting is the fact that a write-up on this other tomb was referenced by Simcha Jacobovici in his works, so that this other tomb was known to the makers/financial beneficiaries of the current Talpiot tomb hype. This tends to discredit their scholarship, if not their honesty then at least their thoroughness.

I suspect that these further facts coming to light will not make much difference in the hardcore anti-Jesus circuit, as there are some who will hold onto their views against Jesus no matter the evidence. (Have I mentioned lately that 100% of the evidence about Jesus' resurrection is in favor, and 0% is against?)


Martin LaBar said...

Thanks for your comment on chance as the main creative agent in the universe.

Thanks for reading some of my posts. I am very sorry if I have misled you about my beliefs. It was certainly not intentional. I do have serious problems with the Intelligent Design political movement, because I don't think it is scientific, and because it has apparently practiced deception, and because I don't think it is possible to prove design -- it's a matter of faith, and the Bible itself indicates that in Hebrews 11:3. However, I also believe that God was, and is, intimately involved with the creation of things, and the way things are now. I believe that God was a great designer.

I also have problems with Young-Earth Creationism, believing that the Bible does not have to be interpreted as Young-Earth Creationists do, and that God has revealed Himself through what we can find in nature (and, of course, in other ways, including the Bible) and that, properly interpreted, there should be no conflict between God's revelations. Scientific findings, especially in geology, do not seem to support the beliefs of Young-Earth Creationists.

Other people, smarter than I, and Christians by almost anyone's criteria, have had the same problems.

I recognize that either ID or YEC could be right, and I could be wrong. However, I see ID and YEC misleading a lot of Christians into views that are not only incorrect, but incompatible with science, and likely to turn some honest seekers with some scientific knowledge away from salvation.

If you really want to know more about what I believe, you might check out some of the posts (see the right top sidebar of my blog) that I consider to be among my most important. Those that are pertinent to this question would be:
1). . . Being Dead, Yet Speaketh . . .
2) I Believe in Evolution. So do You.
3) Scriptural Principles that Relate to Science
4) Thoughts on Hebrews 11:3
5) Young-Earth Creationism versus Intelligent Design.

Thanks again.

Weekend Fisher said...

I had time to read a few those, though your newer post clears up my confusion fairly well. Kind of you to take the time and trouble.

Take care & God bles