Forget titanoceratops. What about Darwin's titanic fraud?

Linked tangentially to this:

Darwinists are some of the most illogical -- and unintentionally ironic -- of all people, committing the very same thought-"crime" of which they accuse others: Making up stories not only devoid of empirical fact, but opposed by it. (Not to mention, their fairy tales are impossible to verify.)

Who has observed Life arise apart from Life or Life's programs? Who has observed a fish evolve into a reptile, or an ape-like creature into a man?

And when the first modern human arose, with what (not "whom") did he/she/it reproduce? Of course, there was no one else, but Darwinists don't want you to notice that little detail. They make the first man a zoophile who can somehow reproduce with non-humans.

But it must be true! And if you disagree, you're an idiot. 

Science vs. Darwin's creation myth in the Left's propaganda war against America

God vs. evolution. Science vs. Darwin. Faith founded on fact vs. neopaganism disguised as "science." Liberalism vs. the Republic.

America's God-hating Left is attacking another Conservative-politician-with-a-clue, hoping to make implications of ignorance and superstition stick.

We have the facts on our side. Just articulate them. Not only that, but it's the accidentalists making the truth claim: Make them prove it. What can they point to that actually demonstrates the truth of their fairy tale?

A brief comment on Darwin's pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual, and irrational creation myth:

The foundation of Science is observable fact.

Who's ever observed abiogenesis? Who's ever witnessed random genetic mutations result in newer and more complex program, structure, and function?

We've only ever seen Life arise from Life and Life's programs. We've only ever seen organisms reproduce the same kinds of organisms.

Darwin's creation myth is absurd on its face, even to an atheist.

If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead

Offered in response at a friend's excellent site:

one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification.

The problem for Darwinian evolution is that all observation shows that it never occurs. Random genetic mutations happen, but they're normally harmful or fatal to the organism. They never add newer, more complex program/structure/function.

If Life is constantly evolving into newer, more complex forms, then how can anyone catch a coelacanth, a fish contemporaneous with the tyrant lizards?

If in five hundred million years, coelacanth evolved into . . . coelacanth, then how did some ape-like organism(s) evolve in only a few million years into Man?

The best Darwinists can do in defense of their creation myth is Lenski's E. Coli, and what do they show? After tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria evolved into . . . bacteria!

The Darwinists demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to deal honestly with facts also in how they address the T. Rex red blood cells discovered in Montana. At first, they did everything they could to avoid admitting that red blood cells were discovered in a fossil at least (according to them) 65 million years old. Then, rather than revise their assumptions with regard to dating, they instead suggested that protein has a longer shelf life than they realized!

(And really, moving the goalposts is all that's left to those who believe that Man arose accidentally from microbes by way of maggots, mice, and monkeys. That and name-calling.)

At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding?

Observable fact. Whether it's Science or Religion, without observable fact, all you've got is fiction.

No scientist observed the Big Bang (anyway, who's ever heard of explosions building things?). No Darwinist has ever observed abiogenesis (so much so, that they run from the topic). And no one's ever observed a bird hatch from a reptile egg.

Darwinism isn't Science, it's science fiction.

Yet we've got sixteen hundred years of eyewitness accounts of YHWH's intervening in human affairs -- culminating with the Crucifixion and Resurrection -- preserved by the societies in which they occurred.

Histories written, words recorded, monuments made, and worshiped as a god. Yet no one denies the historicity of Julius Caesar. Even allegedly-hostile, non-Christian history calling Christ a "sorcerer" acknowledges (unwillingly, no doubt) His miracles, and still the evolutionists mock.

Two thousand years ago, Paul observed that God's eternal power and divine nature are obvious in the Creation. If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead.

Christians have no reason to be ashamed.  All have reasons to believe.

Burying the truth

It wasn't enough for James Cameron to falsely portray the fate of rich and poor to advance Marxism in his Titanic (what does it say for the truth of an ideology that one must lie for it?). Now he is conducting a clumsy, obtuse, pseudo-scientific attack against Christianity.

From here.

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Of course,"scientific evidence," "DNA analysis," and "scholars" make every unsubstantiated assertion in this article legitimate, since everyone knows that if a "scientist" says it, it must be true.

"Could have"? Was only one family living in Jerusalem at the time? Perhaps someone ought to save Cameron from public humiliation by letting him know that there are eyewitness accounts of what happened to Jesus' body in these little texts called the Gospels.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

"...findings also suggest" should read, "these could be anybody's bodies, but we're going to draw the most absurd conclusion possible just to reach the preconceived outcome we desire. Yes, we could've have asked a local cabbie if Jesus had a son with Mary and come to just as reasonable a conclusion, but that wouldn't lend us the same air of authority."

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

"...archaelogical historical fiction," it should say. And statistics can never be misused as a means to one's ends, can they?

As for DNA findings, do the "scientists" have Jesus' mother's DNA? No? Then how in the world can they possibly conclude these are the remains of Christ and His family (especially since eyewitnesses testified upon pain of death to His Resurrection and Ascension)?

...Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary.

So, when the opportunity comes to try to discredit among the naive and the eager the Resurrection, "scholars" know that First Century Jews prepared their dead in this way, but when looking at the eyewitness accounts of what was done with Christ's body recorded in the Gospels, then the knowledge of those same cultural practices lends no historical validity at all to those testimonies?

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

Yes, no one was named "Jesus" in those days, except at least one male in every family (even Barabbas, the criminal sentenced to death but released in Christ's stead, was named "Jesus").

And of course, what are the odds of any other First Century Jews being named "Mary" or "Joseph"? Or of being buried in Jerusalem?

What does the statistical analysis of the fact that only half the boxes in this tomb have names matching New Testament figures?

It looks like all we have evidence of is a common, two-thousand year old, Jewish tomb (and someone's predetermined outcome), as evidenced by the following:

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum told Discovery News.

Here comes support not for this supposed "discovery" but for the Gospels (and an odd bit on Mary):

...Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Discovery News that, based on the New Testament writings, "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

If the second box did contain the remains of Jesus, those remains would have been placed there by family/followers. They would no doubt have noted His mother's name, not Joseph's, since the Gospels cease mentioning Joseph very early in their accounts and often identify Him with His mother, even at His crucifixion where He makes arrangements for her life without Him.

So was this "Mary" actually the wife of Jesus ("Mrs. The Master") as Cameron and Jacobvici seem to hope? Or was this some sort of First Century gender-identity conflict?

Using Cameron and his Partner-in-Crime's logic, we might as well conclude that this tomb is evidence of Mary Magdalene's central place in authentic Christian theology, no doubt usurped by those patriarchal, misogynist Church Fathers.

Someone call Dan Brown quick!

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century."

So, is their "Mariamne" the Magdalene, Philip's sister, or a first century Oprah?

...Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

It's hard to call something "lost" that was used for only a couple of days and then never needed again.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Now, we've gone from "possibly" to a definite identification of Mary Magdalene's remains.

(It would be useful to notice here that "scientists" will admit the Biblical Jesus was really a man, but only when they want to defame and discredit Him.)

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Could this have been one of those common exceptions indicated by the use of the word "normally"?

Count the weasel words: "suggest," "possible," "indicate," "may have," and "could have." Doesn't sound like much with which to destroy two thousand years of established historical fact.

Never mind that the last sentence in that paragraph reveals someone who's never read the Biblical text. There was no boy sleeping in Jesus lap (now He's a pedophile? They must be thinking of the founder of that other world religion).

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

...Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.

So, the James Ossuary has gone from being "controversial" to establishing that the Son of God had a child and is still dead.

Not only is the James box being used to validate this ahistorical defamation of Christ, the fiction itself is being used to establish the identity of the remains in the James Ossuary.

That's the problem with false, circuitous logic: it never ends. Neither do the lies of those who hate Christ.