Joined: Jan. 2007
Oh dear God.
Dembski has decided to spend some of his time dissecting the "Jesus Tomb Math" (which has already been rather strongly criticized in the mainstream media as a rather elaborate sham). Not to be outdone by the hundreds of other people who took a stab at what appears to be some perhaps shoddy mathematics, Dembski tries. What is interesting about this is two-fold. First, Dembski put his refutation of the Jesus tomb math on the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab website! (here!
He makes it a point to provide links to his other "evolutionary informatics" papers, none of which have yet to appear in any journal (and I have read some of them, I reserve judgement until I get a chance to really read them in depth), but what in God's name is a website devoted to the Jesus Tomb doing on an evolutionary informatics website? Compounding matters is the lack of introduction, conclusions, or analysis on the website - it's just a collection of scripts (the links to which are currently broken) and plots.
I also appreciate this from the website:
There has been no consideration given to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ that conflicts with his being buried. With a link to "Leader U", which posits the following 5 pieces of evidence that the resurrection is true:
1: The Bible says that Jesus was buried and later his tomb was empty.
2: Paul says Jesus rose from the grave.
3: The story of the resurrection is old.
4: The story is simple.
5: Women probably discovered the tomb.
6: Other biblical stories also say the tomb was empty.
Well, I'm convinced.
Edit: 2 more things.
1) I should mention that the paper proper has introduction, conclusion, etc. The website lacks these
2) The website goes on to cite quotations arguing against the use of statistics. Why?