Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 80091

[Previous poster: Yes, that's right... 284,917 peer reviewed papers on evolution.]

How many of them were named, Jesus?

AV1611vet, Christian Forums 77 Comments [3/18/2011 3:33:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 99
Submitted By: MM
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
Table Rock

How many authors and/or peer reviewers of the bible were named Jesus?

3/18/2011 3:40:55 AM

Katherine Lorraine

They were likely all named something, but my name's Kitty - not Jesus.

(Ahh, pedantry (note the comma))

3/18/2011 3:50:08 AM

WWWWolf

"Jesus" is a bit silly title for a paper on evolution, don't you think? I mean, scientific papers need good titles, so people know what's in the paper.

Oh, you mean "how many papers name Jesus". Right. Let's try it this way: how many scientific papers on computer science mention Jesus? Yet, here you post your cluelessness for all of the world to see, thanks to the magic of the Internet. Computer science requires precise mathematics, a topic on which the Bible is notoriously silent.

3/18/2011 3:57:17 AM

Raised by Horses



EDIT: Now with more Photoshop!

3/18/2011 3:59:11 AM



that's AV1611vet for you. I don't know why people still argue with him.

3/18/2011 4:01:54 AM

snide

How many of them were named, Jesus?

well, written that way, you appear to be asking jesus how many papers were named. it is standard in quality journals for the papers to have a title, so my guess would be 284,917 papers were named. of course, that's just my guess, and with the comma where you put it, nobody but jesus can answer this question.

or did you mean how many papers were called jesus? I would suspect none.

oh, peers? you meant how many peers were called jesus? ah no, peers have to be people of proven scientific credentials working in the general field that the paper covers. your little friend jesus isn't a leading scientist in the field of biology, he doesn't hold a research post at a recognised research establishment, and he's not actually alive; three minor points that prevent jesus being a referee for a peer review journal.

EDIT: so Katherine Lorraine beat me to it on the whole comma thing. clever Kitty

3/18/2011 4:04:56 AM

farpadokly

You never know, there might have been a Spanish or south American scientist in amongst all that lot.

3/18/2011 4:18:45 AM

Anon2

Well, "Jesus" is a common name in Latin America, and they have some good evolutionary biologists there, so I can imagine that surely some reviewers bear the name "Jesus".

But I assume that you mean the fictional character "Jesus of Nazareth"? Sorry, fictional characters cannot serve as peer reviewers. Nobody would ask Hamlet from the well-known Shakespeare play to serve as peer reviewer, for example.

3/18/2011 4:19:46 AM

Xotan

I'm not quite sure what this is about, but it is certain that the first documents of the New Testament didn't appear until at least 10 years after the crucifixion, and these were written by someone who had never even met Jesus, but claimed to have a vision of him. This evidence is as valid as my saying that I saw Jesus and he told me the whole lot of Epistles, Gospels, Acts and the crazy Revelation are all a load of bollox.

The first Gospel (Mark) appeared about 60 years after Jesus had gone, and it shows strong evidence of text tampering, so quite apart that no one knows who really wrote it, it is highly suspect. The other Gospels were even later and show a definite anti-Jewish slant in favour of exonerating the Romans for Jesus death on the cross. the agenda is clearly visible to any fair-minded person.

So, Jesus could not have given his personal approval to the New Testament, and all this talk of peer review is meaningless in the context of the era. Historians composed speeches that commanders SHOULD have given to their troops, and facts were twisted to produce desired results. Hence the idea of peer review is nonsense.

3/18/2011 4:26:04 AM

Dexter

How many of them were named Allah, Buddha, FSM or the "Great Juju up the mountain"?

You see, the thing is: That doesn't matter in science curriculum...

3/18/2011 4:28:43 AM

Jesus Maria de Mendoza y Lopez, a su servicio

Actually, since there are lots of Spanish-speakers in the world, and Jesus is a relatively common given name in Spanish-speaking areas, there are probably LOTS of papers on evolution written or endorsed by men named Jesus. Heck, there are probably papers co-written by several Jesuses(or should that be Jesi?)


3/18/2011 4:29:32 AM

Doctor Whom

Now how could anyone possibly ... ?

Oh. It's AV1611VET. Then never mind.

3/18/2011 4:35:23 AM

Rufus

Apparently of the 284,917 there were 82, it's the next post.

3/18/2011 4:55:33 AM

protowhalepig

All of them, cunt.

3/18/2011 4:59:28 AM

Prager

Why does having a Spanish name have anything to do with it?

3/18/2011 5:02:40 AM

dionysus

I'd wager that there aren't any peer-reviewed papers named "Jesus". Even if the content of the paper itself made it through peer review they'd probably wonder why the person picked such a weird title and promptly ask him/her to change it.

3/18/2011 5:06:26 AM

Mister Spak

None. That's why we believe them.

3/18/2011 5:18:12 AM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud

Given the number of scientific papers published every year, and the number of Latino men named Jesus, I'd say it's highly likely that a scientific paper written by Jesus pops up every now and then.

3/18/2011 5:28:15 AM

Doubting Thomas

How many of them were named, Jesus?

Who cares? Jesus thought the Noah global flood myth was real and told people that he would return in their lifetimes. He was wrong I bet if he had anything to say about evolution, it would be wrong as well.

3/18/2011 5:30:44 AM

Katherine Lorraine

@snide:

Yay for pedants!

@anon2:

I dunno. I might ask Hamlet to peer review my paper.

"What do you mean it's not peer reviewed? I got Hamlet, Yogi Bear, and the Wizard of Oz to review it!"

3/18/2011 5:32:01 AM

nutbunny

Oh, I read through this sometime last week and could not separate the MAD magazine mascot from his comments. It adds the cherry on top :-D

3/18/2011 5:33:35 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

Apparently, the Jesus of Bible fame couldn't even write. Otherwise, he could have written down what he meant to say rather than leaving it up to politicians and clerics to invent Christianity hundreds of years later. Could have avoided all the confusion, schisms, and wars over the "correct" interpretation. It's like the guy was stupid ... or just plain, old non-existent.

3/18/2011 5:37:04 AM

breakerslion

Actually, I found two.

1. "I think I can explain this whole thing. Jesus, these Jesii want to change your Jesus. They don't want this Jesus or any of his Jesii to believe in the Theory of Jesus because it's bad for their Jesus. They use Jesus to try and force Jesii to believe their Jesus. If you let them stay, they will build Jesii and Jesii, they will take all your Jesii and replace them with Jesus. These Jesii have no good Jesus to believe in Jesus, so they conclude Jesus. Please, let these Jesuii stay where they can dwell and prosper without any Jesii, Jesii, or Jesii."

2. Peer Review of "Evolution for Dummies" by Simple Simon and Schuster

Title: Jesus

Paragraph I: Jesus Christ! How stupid do you have to be not to get this shit?

The End

(Apologies and acknowledgments to Matt and Trey)

3/18/2011 5:38:02 AM

TGRwulf

*facepalm*

3/18/2011 5:45:22 AM

Pup

What kind of quantity is 'Jesus'?

3/18/2011 5:56:39 AM
1 2 3 4