What Science is NOT

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
In other discussions, I see people using the phrase "prove it to me" using Science as your base (or other words to that effect). I would like to suggest that Science is NOT a means by which something can be proven. The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are continually being changed based on new informtion. All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.

---

You won't find anyone who disagrees with you here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.

---

Ah, for that you will need a testable hypothesis. Do you have one? No? Then the scientific method, & therefore science has nothing to say on the matter.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Funk,

quote:

---

okay so prophesies being fulfilled are not acceptable. how about archeologial evidence. is this sort of evidence submittable.

---

Sure, but admissible in support of what?Just because [insert location of choice] is shown to exist, after getting a mention in the bible does not therefore mean that Jesus rose from the dead, or even existed for that matter (not that I deny this). Any part of the bible requires supporting evidence for that particular part.Building archaeological "credibility" will not support unrelated aspects of the bible by virtue of an unrelated fact. For example, if archaeology supports the existence of Troy, this doesn't therefore mean that there exists evidence that Jesus turned water into wine.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Funk,

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I am only trying to get a clear understanding of what is admissable. So specific prophesies, archeological evidence. My post there was just an example. I need to know what sorts of things are acceptable to the scientific process. in order to attempt to compile evidence to support the hypothesis that the bible is the word of God.

​

---

The evidence has to be testable, & support your hypothesis. The hypothesis has to be falsifiable & make predictions.Unless anyone else has anything to add, that's pretty much it (I think).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Forgiven,

quote:

---

... cause then someone would just do what i wrote above, abandon induction leading to deduction and say "it hasn't been rebuilt *yet*"

---

And you guys wouldn't be guilty of the opposite, would you? It hasn't come to pass, *yet*.The prophecy that Tyre would never be rebuilt was wrong. "Here is a picture of modern day Tyre.Over the course of the last two and a half thousand years the coastline has changed slightly, so that the island is now connected to the mainland. As you can see, the (ex)island site and mainland parts are heavily built up.Ezekiel said that Tyre would never be rebuilt and would never be found. Can you find a city in the picture? Did Ezekiel's prophecy come true, even if we grant that he was really talking about Alexander the Great when he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar."Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-12-2002]

Chara,

quote:

---

Think about this for a minute. Zeke's prophecy was so precise he predicted the future use of Tyre ... a place for spreading nets. How can all this be explained? How could Zeke have made such an impressive prediction? Was he just really lucky?

---

Why would having a coastal town as being predicted to be a place of fisherman be so great a prophecy? Lucky? Hardly, he would have been very UNLUCKY if no-one used the port for fishing at one point or another. Mundane.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Forgiven,The current city of Tyre sits atop phoenician remains, so it is hardly "undiscovered".The Encyclopedia Britannica says 'Excavations have uncovered remains of the Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab, and Byzantine civilizations, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period lie beneath the present town", hence Tyre has been rebuilt. It matters not a jot if the entire city was rebuilt, if there was a town built that overlaps the ancient site, then it was reasonably "rebuilt". Regardless, the mainland side of the site is built upon (as can be seen in the photo), & has phoenician artifacts beneath it, ergo, the mainland city has been built upon.Was the city built on the same site as the old city?Yes, it was.Have the Phoenician remains been discovered?Yes, the new town sits on top of it.The prophecy is wrong on these two points.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

hi mark... i posted to this earlier... what you wrote above, does that concern the mainland city or the island city? let's get out of the way exactly what we're talking about before we continue...

---

Forgiven,http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/prophecy.htmThe island city & mainland are joined by a causeway, & all three have been built on. All locations are still above water. Check the photo, I'm not sure if it was you that said the island had a coastline approx 2.5 miles in length, but the photo bears this out. There is also a part of the city known as the "Hay Er-Raml", or Quarter of sand. This is the causeway between the mainland & the island part. Compared with; As you can see, the island still exists, but is connected via a sandbar with the mainland, & has been built upon.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

John, Forgiven.The mainland town was known as Ushu (or Ussu) from Egyptian, Greek, & Assyrian texts, but eventually became a suburb of Tyre proper (the island). Ezekiel, if he made a distinction, would have made a prophecy regarding Ushu, not Tyre, if he had specifically meant the mainland town.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

John,Do a search with "Ushu Tyre". I didn't go much beyond discovering this (today ) myself.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Chara,

quote:

---

The Word of God, and the truth found in it ......

---

Apply the scientific method to that, then. If you can't, how do you ascertain you have a true statement?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

The problem with prophecies (Chara) is that they can be used to support religious views you probably do not subscribe to. I can think of Mormon prophecies that appear to have come to pass.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-14-2002]

---

Gene,I'm pretty ignorant of Mormons, I thought they were a "simply" a christian sect, what Mormon prophecies are unique to that particular faith but not the rest of christianity?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Gene,Thanks for the info.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Chara,http://EvC Forum: What Science is NOT -->EvC Forum: What Science is NOT

quote:

---

Does this shatter my belief that the Bible is the Word of God? No, because the conclusions of science are always tentative. The Word of God, and the truth found in it affect everything in my life. I don't want to base my life on something as tentative as science.

---

When you provide your objective, deductive reasoning for belief in the bible, you may want to factor in the fact that Ezeks Tyre prophecy was wrong (there are people living there today). Not unvalidated, but wrong. How can you place faith in ANY of the bible when it gets things so spectacularly wrong?Please.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-16-2002]

Funk,This is a retreat to an untestable position, the prophecy, & any others like it are utterly worthless for testing the validity of the bible.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Funky,

quote:

---

Science is not the way to "prove" God exists

---

We are talking about an extant entity, so please describe a BETTER method than one that involves a testable hypthesis, positive supporting evidence, & potential falsifications, to demonstrate that that entity potentially exists. When describing your evidence, please take care to omit clear subjectives in support of your claim.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.