Comments on: New Scientist is wrong (but is this news?)

By: IVAN3MAN

IVAN3MAN — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:18:52 +0000

Mark: “Some historical facts should be shared so that you have a basis of understanding whereby I do not know if you poses currently. Jesus did live here on earth. It’s recorded that he healed the sick…”

Well, here are some real historical facts:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Mark: “But yet even while not on Earth He still does heal the sick and lame, Sandra Gardner (loupus [sic], MS, Brain damage, blindness, atripy [sic] (muscle loss) paralysis) all instantly healed when asked of Jesus, instant restoration of loss muscle mass) demonstrated by running about 1 mile non stop immeadiately [sic] after being healed…”

Hearsay evidence does not count. Can you, Mark, provide concrete evidence in the form of medical records to verify your assertions?

Dr. Chauncey Crandall: “His face, his arms, his legs were pitch black with death.”

Within an hour?! That is a load of rubbish! The fresh stage of decomposition occurs during the first few days following the death. There are no physical signs of decomposition during this time. Black putrefaction can take anywhere between 10 to 20 days after death, depending on region and temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Human_decomposition

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:21:39 +0000

Mark – I don’t suppose you had anybody testing these healings for objectivity, in a scientific way did you. Didn’t think so. Until they are tested they will be treated as they sound – incredible i.e. not to be believed.

Also, as far as I’m aware, the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible, which can be excluded as it is a relgious text and subjective. Josephus can be excluded as there is suggestion that the original document was doctored.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:58:21 +0000

Some historical facts should be shared so that you have a basis of understanding whereby I do not know if you poses currently. Jesus did live here on earth. It’s recorded that he healed the sick, cured the lame, and raised people from then dead. It’s recorded that He raised himself from the dead as well. Now He’s no longer on Earth or to point Him out would be possible. We could say, “hey look, He’s right there.” But yet even while not on Earth He still does heal the sick and lame, Sandra Gardner ( loupus, MS, Brain damage, blindness, atripy(muscle loss) paralysis) all instantly healed when asked of Jesus, instant restoration of loss muscle mass (demonstrated by running about 1 mile non stop immeadiately after being healed, and raises the dead, a man in Miami after necrosis had set. read about it http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/specialreport/MI75423.

So before you roll your eyes to suposive creationism ammo understand that you don’t have perfect knowledge or perfect understanding of everything. But to roll your eyes at overblown marketing gimicks is quite fine and my eyes will roll right along with yours.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:09:18 +0000

You should at least respect the criacionists! Thats ok you dont agree with us, but at least RESPECT US and our ideas!
If someone comes up with any crazy new theory about anything, the guy will be heard. Right now everybody is hearing abou dark mater, dark energy, etc… , but if someone talk about ID, or creation … BANG!!!! … Burn him!!!

By: Zofia Magrian

Zofia Magrian — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:03:44 +0000

After Dawkins did such a bad job with The God Delusion he gave creationists reasons to celebrate but this is a joke… Even if they just wanted to sell. Let’s trash Darwin and learn biology from the Bridgewater Treatises OMG… We’re coming back to the Middle Ages. What about Robert Grant? He had the same idea as Darwin. They were rivals and both collected their own evidence. Grant just didn’t get round to publishing it. Did they even mention him or dealt with his idea in any way? Obviously not…

I don’t think they’re going to apologize but one more story like that and people will stop taking them seriously.

By: Philip S

Philip S — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:54:22 +0000

Creationism is illogical

By: Kevin Jardine

Kevin Jardine — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:32:37 +0000

I appreciate your point, but I would be surprised if New Scientist apologises. This is actually a very typical cover for them and follows “Einstein was wrong”, and other covers implying that faster than light or time travel is possible and all kind of incredible things.

It’s all about competition on the news stand. Inevitably the actual cover story is much less dramatic (and usually less interesting) than the cover implies.

And in the context of the UK market, the New Scientist covers are actually pretty staid …