Creationists Go Round And Round

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I'm not surprised by this, but as with all things there may be other explanations rather than going: "Ha this proves creationism":

1) Firstly the fossil record is not as complete as people might think - there are, for example only 30 fossils of T-Rex's that have been discovered, many of which are far from complete. Going back as early as this I should imagine the fossil record is even more scarce. Why is this? Well the Earth is an awfully big place and most fossil-rich locations are found by accident where would you look to find them?

2) They could be wrong - this is just a theory and I'm sure others will produce opposing theories

3) Life could have originated off-planet - maybe our creator was in fact dust from a comet?

4) Or maybe little green men were involved?

5)....

There could be many more explanations and although 4) sounds daft, scientifically it is just as, if not more likely than the notion of a big geezer with a white beard creating it in 7 days.

The point I am trying to make is not that we all hail from aliens, but that there are many potential theories and this one does not prove creationism any more than any other.

[monza gorilla 1]

....the notion of a big geezer with a white beard creating it in 7 days.

Kenny Rogers is the creator?

[pumpdoc 2]

Dads sperm met moms egg, I was created.

I stand by my first post, and no my dad isn't Kenny Rogers

[monza gorilla 1]

I don't think I'd admit it if he was.

[pumpdoc 2]

[Jez 0]

Your own religious beliefs are what you make them. Every Christian chooses their own variety of Christianity, from young-earth creationists to people like Don Cupitt, one of surprisingly many Anglican priests who don't believe God really exists at all. In between you have folk like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury who take some of the Bible literally but interpret other passages metaphorically, and even reject some parts outright. I understand what you're saying, but a "take it or leave it" attitude is really damaging imho. That view is encouraged by literalists for obvious reasons but it's what causes all the problems from religion. We're all free to choose what we believe; we have no choice but to choose! We should use the brains and conscience God gave us to do so.

Such a good post Murray

[Max Mosley 2]

Why thank you Jez. I must say your post above was mighty fine too. I couldn't have put it better myself!

[HandyNZL 1]

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

LiveScience Staff

LiveScience.com

Thu Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn't imagine the earliest critter could be so complex.

The mystery of the first animal denizen of the planet can only be inferred from fossils and by studying related animals today. To get to the bottom of that, scientists analyzed massive volumes of genetic data to define the earliest splits at the base of the animal tree of life.

The tree of life is a hierarchy of evolutionary relationships among species that shows which groups split off on their own evolutionary path first.

The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor.

"This was a complete shocker," said study team member Casey Dunn of Brown University in Rhode Island. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong."

Dunn's team checked and re-checked their results and came up with the same result every time: the comb jelly came first. The results are detailed in the April 10 issue of the journal Nature, a journal that, like most respected journals, requires other scientists review a paper prior to publication.

Unlike sponges, comb jellies have connective tissues and a nervous system, and so are more complex. Though squishy and tentacled, they are not, however, true jellyfish as they lack the classic bell-shaped body and characteristic stinging cells.

The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. Dunn says that two evolutionary scenarios can explain why the comb jellies would actually have been first among animals. The first is that the comb jelly evolved its complexity independent of other animals after branching off to forge its own path.

The second is that the sponge evolved its simpler form from the more complex form. This second possibility underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," Dunn said.

Though scientists can say which animal branched off first, they can't date precisely when this early comb jelly diverged away. "Unfortunately, we don't have fossils of the oldest comb jelly," Dunn said. "Therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly and determine when it diverged."

Though comb jellies are a common creature in the seas today, these modern specimens likely look very different from their early ancestors.

Dunn and his team hope that their approach will fill other gaps in the tree of life, including where the branches of many of today's species belong.

Other researchers involved in the study, funded by the National Science Foundation: Gonzalo Giribet of Harvard University, Mark Martindale of the University of Hawaii and Ward Wheeler of the American Museum of Natural History.

10 Amazing Things You Didn't Know About Animals

Greatest Mysteries: How Many Species Exist on Earth?

Life's Little Mysteries

Original Story: Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

As we can see not all in science is as it looks or as they think it is, now we have to rethink evolution once more, move some piece to another part of the chain and this is just with the knowledge we have now, a few years from now maybe a new animal will have that honor, maybe science will give up and say that this fisrt animal is so complex that have be to form another planet where maybe evolution was the way they thought it was and that animal can here in a comet or something like that, just to protect their theory, just keep watching there's a lot more coming, stay tuned.

PS:the title says ON EARTH maybe they are already thinking about life coming form another planet and I forgot to include the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200804...risinglycomplex

Underlined, bold and italiced excerpt above has been noticeably glossed over in Scumikonen (some form of evolved race car driver perhaps?????) post. As many posters have said, science at least checks, double checks, and then triple checks any result they get, and then allow their peers to do exactly the same thing.

For starters...did a mortician clinically check if the big-J was even mortally wounded up there on the cross? And then have this corroborated by a few other doctors???? Just a question....

[HandyNZL 1]

As per Schumikonen's remark about "on Earth"....just where exactly do you think they were doing the research?

Lets see.....

Shock: First Animal on Ice Planet Hoth Was Surprisingly Complex

Shock: First Animal on Alderran Was Surprisingly Complex

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Now which of the three titles makes the most flippin' sense?

[Schumikonen 2]

As per Schumikonen's remark about "on Earth"....just where exactly do you think they were doing the research?

Lets see.....

Shock: First Animal on Ice Planet Hoth Was Surprisingly Complex

Shock: First Animal on Alderran Was Surprisingly Complex

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Now which of the three titles makes the most flippin' sense?

I just want to ask you this, Do you any other planet with animals? it not obvious enough that there is only known life on earth that they have to specify that they are talking about life on earth?

IMO by just saying first animal is enough for me to know they are talking about earth, maybe you need them to be a little more specific, that's not my case and if you don't know what SETI is I am just going to tell you that I am not the looking for extraterrestial intelligence out there.

[dribbler 6]

I wonder who the last person ever to be born will be. I wonder whether when the planet goes supernova how big the particle remains of my body will be. Things like that and my pension keep me awake.

[HandyNZL 1]

I wonder who the last person ever to be born will be. I wonder whether when the planet goes supernova how big the particle remains of my body will be. Things like that and my pension keep me awake.

If you break us right down, we are just energy...so when the sun goes supanova your energy will be blasted into the universe, dispersed on the solar winds, mixing with other forms of energy, and once more coming to rest as something solid in a galaxy, far, far, away.

[YHR 0]

It's an interesting article but I think you still don't understand that scientific explanations are totally different to religious ones. The fact that scientific explanations change as we learn more is not a bad thing. If all you want is an explanation that will remain unchanged, I can easily give you one: Nature made us. That explanation is as detailed as the religious one, and it is as unchanging. There you go. I have solved all the problems in science once and for all.

The trouble is not the scientists, or science but the leagues of people who hang their hat on theories formulated and bathe in the glow that this science somehow proves there is no God. Some people seem to think the relationship between God and science is mutually exclusive. I am not one of those. I am very keen to learn about many things, and what I have learned is that for everything we figure out leads to many things we don't understand. To religiously stand behind science is flawed. Science changes, it has to. We learn and discover more everyday. The scientific theory you stand behind today, may be proven wrong in 400 years. Honestly there was a time we thought the earth was flat. The people who look like fools today are not the scientists of the time trying to prove the world was round, but those who used the known (flat earth) science of the time to condemn those that disagreed with this "known" fact.

History has shown us how wrong that was, and yet here today we have masses of people willing to condemn the beliefs of others based on our "known" science of today. I ask people try not to be "Flat Earthers" and keep an open mind.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

The trouble is not the scientists, or science but the leagues of people who hang their hat on theories formulated and bathe in the glow that this science somehow proves there is no God. Some people seem to think the relationship between God and science is mutually exclusive. I am not one of those. I am very keen to learn about many things, and what I have learned is that for everything we figure out leads to many things we don't understand. To religiously stand behind science is flawed. Science changes, it has to. We learn and discover more everyday. The scientific theory you stand behind today, may be proven wrong in 400 years. Honestly there was a time we thought the earth was flat. The people who look like fools today are not the scientists of the time trying to prove the world was round, but those who used the known (flat earth) science of the time to condemn those that disagreed with this "known" fact.

History has shown us how wrong that was, and yet here today we have masses of people willing to condemn the beliefs of others based on our "known" science of today. I ask people try not to be "Flat Earthers" and keep an open mind.

Your post is full of contradictions. Given the choice, would you:

1) Pin your faith in advancing and constantly improving knowledge, which is constantly being verified and tested (sure, there is change, but at least the ideas are evolving (oh wait, you guys don't believe in evolution either....))

or

2) Have faith in a bunch of parables and stories about mythical beings that were largely passed mouth to mouth for decades, were then written down, translated several times, changed by people in power to suit their own political and religious beliefs and then delivered in some interpreted fashion (but treated as historically accurate)?

Let's put it another way - imagine your life hangs in the balance; two doctors come into your hospital room, they both offer you pills:

- One doctor is a Harvard trained medic, a specialist with many years experience who provides you with a tried and tested medicine, based upon many scientific trials and feedback.

- The other doctor is a druid of much experience, he was worked with herbal remedies his whole life and bases his recipes upon those handed down and translated from original Egyptian herbal recipes. He offers you a pill.

Both claim they will cure you completely, you have to take one to live - which one are you going to take?

My point is that just as you ask others be open-minded - so should you! My problem is that the Bible (or for that matter any other holy book) is not "God", nor is it the truth as it is a document that humans have had their mucky paws on for years and through translation, misinterpretation, deviousness, misunderstanding and Chines whispers has morphed what we have today. You don't have to believe the Bible to believe in God. The problems arise (like creationism) where people take the Bible literally. The Bible is no more historically accurate than the News of The World newspaper. However, what *is* important is that it lays down parables, rules, etc and there are hidden meanings within it which *do* lay out a template for a good way for people to behave and explain about spirituality.

If you can see beyond taking the texts literally it opens up a lot of possibilities and one of these possibilities is that science has a place. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

YHR you got me thinking a bit more...

Do you believe in the possibility of life outside of our planet?

If so, can you explain how this fits into the Bible/whole Jesus story/God thing? e.g. were they created in 7 days too? Do the other inhabited planets have their own Bible? and does JC visit them too? If so, then in what form? (if, for example planet Zorg has intelligent reptiles, would the Son of God come down as a reptile?) How does Adam and Eve fit into all of this? Are these planets 6000 years old too?

If you don't believe in life outside of our planet, why not? How do you explain us being so unique? What if you are wrong?

Not being funny, I just am genuinely interested in what Christians believe in this respect.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

YHR you got me thinking a bit more...

Do you believe in the possibility of life outside of our planet?

If so, can you explain how this fits into the Bible/whole Jesus story/God thing? e.g. were they created in 7 days too? Do the other inhabited planets have their own Bible? and does JC visit them too? If so, then in what form? (if, for example planet Zorg has intelligent reptiles, would the Son of God come down as a reptile?) How does Adam and Eve fit into all of this? Are these planets 6000 years old too?

If you don't believe in life outside of our planet, why not? How do you explain us being so unique? What if you are wrong?

Not being funny, I just am genuinely interested in what Christians believe in this respect.

It will be a major block in Christian faith if there's life found in other galaxies or planets. God's covenant is with man, He made us in His own image, and gave us freedom of choice to serve Him or not. It was in His almighty plan to show those angels who stayed with Him, those that were not smitten by lucifer, how he can bless a nation with love. These are the angels that fight for us every day. Having life outside our planet will break that code...

It must be that those b#####ds angels that followed lucifer called demons may pose as extraterrestrials in the future, and we fall into the trap of believing them as so...

To me life does'nt exist in other planets or galaxies...

[Schumikonen 2]

It's an interesting article but I think you still don't understand that scientific explanations are totally different to religious ones. The fact that scientific explanations change as we learn more is not a bad thing. If all you want is an explanation that will remain unchanged, I can easily give you one: Nature made us. That explanation is as detailed as the religious one, and it is as unchanging. There you go. I have solved all the problems in science once and for all.

that's not my case, I understand the scientifics explanations my point here is how much can we trust thoses explanations when they can not support themselves for a long time? they are constantly changing, today two days ago sponges were consider the fisrt animal, now they are not, some years ago there was another theory about a living soup which it was like a living lake made of organic water to put it simple, all that have been changed, give it a few years, science will find a new method to experiment and the results will be different and everything we talked about this will be useless unless you see it form the point that today's knowledge lead us to tomorrows's, all that is right to me except for the part taht we are drawing conclusion base in what we know now and we call it "evidence" and we discard other things just because of that and at the end we have nothing, because tomorrow or maybe as soon as today that conclusion will be changed.

[AleHop 0]

Sorry, this thread is far too long and I have little time and capacity...

Could you elaborate a summary in a few sentences?

Then I might be able to post my thoughts.

Thanks.

[Schumikonen 2]

I'm not surprised by this, but as with all things there may be other explanations rather than going: "Ha this proves creationism":

1) Firstly the fossil record is not as complete as people might think - there are, for example only 30 fossils of T-Rex's that have been discovered, many of which are far from complete. Going back as early as this I should imagine the fossil record is even more scarce. Why is this? Well the Earth is an awfully big place and most fossil-rich locations are found by accident where would you look to find them?

2) They could be wrong - this is just a theory and I'm sure others will produce opposing theories

3) Life could have originated off-planet - maybe our creator was in fact dust from a comet?

4) Or maybe little green men were involved?

5)....

There could be many more explanations and although 4) sounds daft, scientifically it is just as, if not more likely than the notion of a big geezer with a white beard creating it in 7 days.

The point I am trying to make is not that we all hail from aliens, but that there are many potential theories and this one does not prove creationism any more than any other.

I know that and this means there is not explanation yet, scientists are trying to explain something they don't fully understand and don't have the tools required to do it yet, but they present "their findings" as a fact, here they said it was tested many times always coming to the same result, they even thought they had done something wrong, they are presenting this as a conclusion, they are sure this experiment is finally done the right way and they got the right result and it was reviewed by many scientists so what could be wrong besides from the part that the more complex an animal is the more unlikely is that this complex animal evolved by itself given that is the first and there is no room for the trial and error here, is that news is true then at lot of thing have to change from this we are talking about a first animal that have moving part.

[Schumikonen 2]

YHR you got me thinking a bit more...

Do you believe in the possibility of life outside of our planet?

If so, can you explain how this fits into the Bible/whole Jesus story/God thing? e.g. were they created in 7 days too? Do the other inhabited planets have their own Bible? and does JC visit them too? If so, then in what form? (if, for example planet Zorg has intelligent reptiles, would the Son of God come down as a reptile?) How does Adam and Eve fit into all of this? Are these planets 6000 years old too?

If you don't believe in life outside of our planet, why not? How do you explain us being so unique? What if you are wrong?

Not being funny, I just am genuinely interested in what Christians believe in this respect.

I can explain it, bible does not talks about life only on earth check this, you can find it on Ezekiel 1

4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north

[Schumikonen 2]

Underlined, bold and italiced excerpt above has been noticeably glossed over in Scumikonen (some form of evolved race car driver perhaps?????) post. As many posters have said, science at least checks, double checks, and then triple checks any result they get, and then allow their peers to do exactly the same thing.

For starters...did a mortician clinically check if the big-J was even mortally wounded up there on the cross? And then have this corroborated by a few other doctors???? Just a question....

No they didn't but the bible says that he was hurt with a spear John 19:34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. That water tells you that his lounge was openned by that wound.

But the most important this is this, there are a lot of people including me that know for sure that he is alive today and taht is all that I need to know about it.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I can explain it, bible does not talks about life only on earth check this, you can find it on Ezekiel 1

4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north

[Schumikonen 2]

it's a vision, you're taking it too literally, each part of the creature resembles something...

I'de like to hear Mike's take on this....

Maybe but anyway he saw it and if he saw it like that there is a reason for that, God wanted us to know something and that is what we need to find out, remember that God knows everything and he knew that this vision it was going to be compare with this today, there's no casualities in god's plans, there is a rason for everything.

[YHR 0]

Your post is full of contradictions. Given the choice, would you:

1) Pin your faith in advancing and constantly improving knowledge, which is constantly being verified and tested (sure, there is change, but at least the ideas are evolving (oh wait, you guys don't believe in evolution either....))

or

2) Have faith in a bunch of parables and stories about mythical beings that were largely passed mouth to mouth for decades, were then written down, translated several times, changed by people in power to suit their own political and religious beliefs and then delivered in some interpreted fashion (but treated as historically accurate)?

Let's put it another way - imagine your life hangs in the balance; two doctors come into your hospital room, they both offer you pills:

- One doctor is a Harvard trained medic, a specialist with many years experience who provides you with a tried and tested medicine, based upon many scientific trials and feedback.

- The other doctor is a druid of much experience, he was worked with herbal remedies his whole life and bases his recipes upon those handed down and translated from original Egyptian herbal recipes. He offers you a pill.

Both claim they will cure you completely, you have to take one to live - which one are you going to take?

My point is that just as you ask others be open-minded - so should you! My problem is that the Bible (or for that matter any other holy book) is not "God", nor is it the truth as it is a document that humans have had their mucky paws on for years and through translation, misinterpretation, deviousness, misunderstanding and Chines whispers has morphed what we have today. You don't have to believe the Bible to believe in God. The problems arise (like creationism) where people take the Bible literally. The Bible is no more historically accurate than the News of The World newspaper. However, what *is* important is that it lays down parables, rules, etc and there are hidden meanings within it which *do* lay out a template for a good way for people to behave and explain about spirituality.

If you can see beyond taking the texts literally it opens up a lot of possibilities and one of these possibilities is that science has a place. They are not mutually exclusive.

If the druids science is unproven and yet he can show results then what???

??? Not sure why you think my post is full of contradictions. Point out one contradiction in it!!!

I have gone on record as saying that my interpertation of what I have read in the Bible, challenges us to seek the truth. Beware of false prophets, etc. We owe it to ourselves to challenge science, as we should challenge claims made by religious groups. I have been ridiclued for believing in that, and my faith questioned for these views by at least one member. I am fine with that. Who is he to tell me my relationship with God is flawed???? The arrogance of it makes me laugh.

Christians believe in Christ. His teachings are wise, and his miracles were witnessed by thousands. The fact that a man named Jesus walked on this planet 2000 years ago is without doubt. How much "faith" you place on him being divine is up to you. You don't have to believe in the Bible to believe in a god, but you do if you believe in The God. The bible is the measuring stick you need to use to ensure the God you believe in is Holy. Without that it is too easy to go with the flavour of the day, which quite franky, is what many people do. It is important to test what you are being told against the bible. This is how you prevent yourself from being mislead and perhaps manipulated by those that might have an alternate purpose. I think Christinaity will stand the test of time and science. Others have already failed these tests. An blantant example of this is the comet worshippers.

I think you have made the mistake of assigning your preconceived notions on what Christians are, on to me. I have no idea of what your background is or exactly what you actually know about Christianity. My advice is to to not paint all people with religion with the same brush.

A simple thing like the mechanics of water freezing has been explained to me at a molecular level. "Wow "isn't that amazing! So to take it one step further, you either have to believe we are lucky for this phenonmon to exist or is it more than luck?. IF you are happy and at peace with the "luck" explanation and don't want to look any further than that, then fine, that is your choice. For me, the more science unfolds, the more "WOW" I experience. Rather then these discoveries shaking my faith they do the opposite. How can things so complex, just happen? In my opinion, DNA strings do nothing but prove the complexity of life and the miracle of it.

I came to Christinaity through Christ and the Bible. I was not raised in a Sunday school. I had no religious beliefs stuffed down my throat as a minor. I am fully aware there are many "Christian" institutions that have it all wrong, and worse, have given Christianity a bad name. That is not my Christ, nor my interpertation of what I have read. For the record I have found Christianity since becoming a member of this forum. This is a relatively new thing for me. SO I kind of have a pretty good grasp of the "other" side to this argument.

Not sure if it was you but someone asked, "what if I am wrong?". IF I am wrong then I started to live a good Christian life that is compassionate and caring, based on the ten commandments. The rule book will have kept me whole and hopeful through my life, and I'll die with optimism and peace, as I complete the circle of life.

Now I ask the question of you. How do your beliefs prepare you for death, and what if you are wrong, and death is not the end, but only the beginning of something that we just don't have the mental capacity to comprehend ????

I don't know about you, but I can live with the fact that maybe I am wrong. How about you I can begin to see the importance of those without faith being "right" about this, because boy if you are not, things aren't looking too good for you. If you are right the best you can hope for is nothingness at death. If you are wrong,...well, you know the rest.I guess that is the realization I came to a few years ago. Science has done nothing and will do nothing to prove the existance of God. So we must face our mortality with this big unknown. I came to the fork in the road and decided on what path I needed to take. Forget all about everything else ,the faith in God and potential afterlife is an inspiration of hope that does not exist down the other path. Without faith there is nothing at the end but death. Sorry but that is not a great comfort to me, and that is what started me down this path. The more I read the bible the more I think , "WOW, how come I never thought about things this way before?".

Practically speaking I don't know why someone would choose to live a life without hope. I guess a younger person fills their life hope with material hope... I hope I do well, I hope I have money, I hope I can travel, etc , etc. When you get older like me and have acquired many of the things you hoped for, you are then faced with the big question.... "Now what?".

In the end I must say that since becoming a practicing Christian I have experienced some real animosity from other people. I am not sure why my faith upsets others the way it does. Very strange that my choice to follow someone so kind,and forgiving can be threatening to others???? I guess there is ignorance on both sides of the discussion. A lot of people are quick to make assumptions, based on mainstrain truths about Christianity that are basically flawed. I understand this, because I used to believe some of those "truths" myself. "Christian Churches have been some of the worst offenders of the very teachings of Christ, so the message is very mixed. It truly is unfortunate, and there is a passage in the Bible mentioning those that have mislead in the name of God will be taken to task.

Anyway, pretty deep discussion for a racing forum.

[HandyNZL 1]

Anyways, besides all your arguments presented herein, Disco Channel (that's Discovery Channel to y'all un-hip people), had a good documentary on last nighthere in lil ol NZ - The Lost Tomb of Jesus.

I thought that the evidence was presented balanced and provided a full picture. The scientists / archaeologists were trying to present that this tomb in Talpiot was indeed the Jesus family tomb.

It had off..offico...officar.....bone boxes (can't spell the correct word) with inscriptions for:

Jesus son of Joseph

Joseph

Maria

Mariame Magdeline (whose DNA profile extracted from old bone tissue versus DNA from Jesus bone did not come from same mother, thus not brother and sister, nor part of family, so why in Jesus family tomb?????)

Jose

James son of Joseph

Matthew

Now to me, the evidence given by the scientists proved without reasonable doubt that the tomb was that of the Jesus family. The statistical evidence alone of having that cluster of names and references such as "son of Joseph", put the chance of this NOT being the tomb as 1 in 2.4m - this figure arrived at dividing the original figure by 4 to remove statistical error, dividing again by 10 (forget why that step was done), and again by 2 to remove chance (flip of the coin scenario), so the raw statistical chance of this NOT being the correct tomb was 1 in 192,000,000 - a huge, huge, huge number given the population of the day.

Anyways, what got me the most was that science presented this, and when they presented it (their findings) to the church, or someone involved, they would not have a bar of it, yet agreed with science when other boxes from other tombs were subjected to the same analysis, were said to contain certain "enemies" of Jesus, and one even of the man that condemned him to death. Infact the statistical evidence of the bone box found for this man was much, much lower than what was worked out for the Jesus tomb, and they accepted the theory (if you will) that the box carrying this other persons name was carved eleaborately, so therefore must have been this important man.

So, why is that? Why would the "church" / "representatives of" not want further investigation into this find? Why? Because science found it, perhaps? Because it knocks some things over in the current bible? I dunno....