Leon A Davis, Scottsdale, AZ #fundie

Leon A Davis, Scottsdale, AZ #fundie timesonline.co.uk

(From a news article on Higgs boson particles)

When I was a little kid I remember reading in the Bible the story of how Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection. But He said, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." Thomas happened not to be there, so when he was told about it, dismissed it as collective hysteria on the part of the witnesses. Something on the order of, yeah, we all loved the guy, he was a great man, but he's dead. So when again Jesus appeared, he noticed Thomas standing apart with his eyes bugging out of his head. "Thomas, it's me. Really. Come here. feel my scars." The difference between appearance one and two? In the latter, he was flesh and blood. In the former he was probably something like anti-matter. One touch and ka-boom! Goodbye universe. Whoever wrote this originally did not know from molecular physics or whatever kind of science is involved. It was written as it happened. Now, over fifty years after first reading this, I sure would like to know the science behind it. .

57 comments

old comment by nintendofreakgcn

@1Burning Stake: I checked all four Gospels and didn't find the "Doubting Thomas" story in anywhere but John. It's possible I missed it, but not probable. Upon checking again, however, I did find another interesting passage that I think explains Leon's comments. The passage is Luke 24:36-43.

Basically, the risen Jesus appears to the Apostles, including Thomas, and says the standard "I'm back, peace be with you," stuff. Interestingly, however, he also says "Touch me and see for yourselves; a ghost has no flesh and bones as I have." Most likely, Leon's memory for the story is just a bit shoddy, and that's why he thought Jesus instructed the Apostles not to touch him.

Of course, it still doesn't excuse his shoddy science and inability to simply look up the passage.

old comment by

"The difference between appearance one and two? In the latter, he was flesh and blood. In the former he was probably something like anti-matter. One touch and ka-boom! Goodbye universe."

Uh, anti-matter doesn't work quite like that.

"Whoever wrote this originally did not know from molecular physics or whatever kind of science is involved."

You probably shouldn't pontificate on things when you're not even sure what field the information comes from.

"It was written as it happened. Now, over fifty years after first reading this, I sure would like to know the science behind it."

Yes, well, that's one of the beautiful things about science: you can see exactly how they got their results. If you have the requisite knowledge in the field, or someone you know does and can explain it, all you have to do is get a copy of the journal the paper was published in. Cool, eh?

The story that you're referring to in the Babble has no other source but itself which sort of makes it difficult to "see the science behind it" which makes it essentially useless even if it were a real event.

old comment by John_in_Oz

@ kilrturkey
Nope, it's COMPREHENSIBLE gibberish.
Primarily because Leon's memory of the biblical story is roughly as inaccurate as his understanding of science.
He apparently believes the biblical account to be true, which I acknowledge is a reasonable stance. I don't think so myself, but can see that the position is sufficient to convince the majority of people of ordinary (and many of extraordinary) intelligence who have been raised in the faith.
These people are not all Fundamentalists or nutters (Two distinct sets that nevertheless have a great deal of overlap.)
Thinking it's true, he's speculating on a possible cause, acknowledging his ignorance, and desiring to know the answer. Wow, basically the essentials of the scientific viewpoint, missing only 'run and find out'. Not the least bit Fundy.
Admittedly his failure to realise anti-matter and air would explode on contact is funny, but hell, I make stupider mistakes than that three or more times every day.