EvC Forum: Science: A Method not a Source

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Science: A Method not a Source

Admin

Director

Posts: 13023

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.0

Normal Thread Display

Message 131 of 177 (589946)
11-05-2010 8:25 AM

Moderator On Duty Soon

It's been two days since I last posted as Percy, so beginning tomorrow I'll begin moderating this thread. I've become concerned that cryptic Socratic questions might have begun comprising too great a proportion of the contributions. As an occasional riposte, fine, but as a steady diet, no. If you have a point or a rebuttal to make then please state it directly and clearly.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin

Director

Posts: 13023

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.0

Normal Thread Display

Message 159 of 177 (590130)
11-06-2010 8:12 AM

Reply to: Message 153 by Jon
11-05-2010 4:39 PM

Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)

Jon writes:

Admin already asked that we toss the silly question-games aside; so if you've a point to make with these questions, make it.

Since my moderator request has been mentioned, I'll offer additional clarification.

Jon writes:

The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory ...

Of course they do. And?

But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.

Of course it is. And?

Some additional text as to the nature of what is missing would have been helpful.

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 153 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 4:39 PM		Jon has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13023

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.0

Normal Thread Display

Message 161 of 177 (590158)
11-06-2010 11:15 AM

Reply to: Message 160 by jar
11-06-2010 11:08 AM

Re: Testing BY Prediction

jar writes:

Since I have never made such a claim and you still seem to misrunderstand what I have said, why should I respond?

You should respond in order to correct the misunderstanding. If you've decided this isn't possible then no response is necessary. You can click on the "Jar has not yet responded link" and it will change to "Jar acknowledges this reply".

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 160 by jar, posted 11-06-2010 11:08 AM		jar has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13023

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.0

Normal Thread Display

Message 173 of 177 (590283)
11-07-2010 11:36 AM

Reply to: Message 172 by Jon
11-07-2010 11:14 AM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

Jon writes:

In the writings of thousands of religious folk. Their writings seem to back up a lot of the statements in the Bible.

Some clarification might be helpful.

Did you mean to say that if, for example, someone writes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem after reading in the Bible that Jesus was born in Bethlehem that this would provide support for the Bible's account of Jesus's place of birth?

Or did you mean to say that there are many ancient writings that provide independent verification of statements in the Bible?

Or did you mean something else?

Please, no replies to this message.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by Jon, posted 11-07-2010 11:14 AM		Jon has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,486 Year: 3,743/9,624 Month: 614/974 Week: 227/276 Day: 3/64 Hour: 1/1