What Science is NOT

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.

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.------------------
saved by grace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B]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. [/QUOTE][/B]
Well, when I was reading Wolram's Book "A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE" (for which I am not done reading so can not give a full book review as I thought I was doing for Crick's but.in another thread...)it seems unproblemetical to me (if it is not and is problematical then I may "fall" in line with Mark's take off point etc) that COMPUTATION is not any APPLICATION OF SCIENCE such that science could be *used* to "proove" universality no matter ones sophisticated use of the stuff. [QUOTE][B]
The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are continually being changed based on new informtion. [/QUOTE][/B]bEYOND THE CLAIM TO "UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION" WOLFRAM HAS POSITIONED HIMSELF FOR A FUTHER "ISSUE" AS TO EQUIVALENT SOPHISTICATION no matter HOW MUCH INFO OR CHANGE IN INFO THERE IS. [QUOTE][B]
All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.What can we do with science? [/QUOTE][/B]
i DONT DOUBT THAT WOLFRAM THINKS HE CAN DO THIS MUCH WITH THE STUFF OF SCIENCE AND IF HE CAN SO CAN I. [B][QUOTE] We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B]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. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]
Well, when I was reading Wolram's Book "A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE" (for which I am not done reading so can not give a full book review as I thought I was doing for Crick's but.in another thread...)it seems unproblemetical to me (if it is not and is problematical then I may "fall" in line with Mark's take off point etc) that COMPUTATION is not any APPLICATION OF SCIENCE such that science could be *used* to "proove" universality no matter ones sophisticated use of the stuff. [QUOTE][B]
The history of science shows that scientific conclusions are continually being changed based on new informtion. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

bEYOND THE CLAIM TO "UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION" WOLFRAM HAS POSITIONED HIMSELF FOR A FUTHER "ISSUE" AS TO EQUIVALENT SOPHISTICATION no matter HOW MUCH INFO OR CHANGE IN INFO THERE IS. [QUOTE][B]
All it takes is once counter-example. Therefore the conclusions of science are always tentative.

​

What can we do with science? [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]
i DONT DOUBT THAT WOLFRAM THINKS HE CAN DO THIS MUCH WITH THE STUFF OF SCIENCE AND IF HE CAN SO CAN I.

​

[B][QUOTE] We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.[/B][/QUOTE]

​

---

Still thinking on what others have said in previous posts (not ignoring the questions or comments) but I knew that I could quickly respond to your post Brad. I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Perhaps others will have something to contribute to what you said, but as for me, (as John encouraged me to say on occasion) you're toooooo smart for me.

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.

thank you kindly.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

The point is, unless you set specific criterion ahead of time to test your theory that the Bible is inspired by God, all you are ever doing is interpreting after the fact.

---

[/b]Specific criterion, in this case would be?Prophecies used must be exact,understandable, written before the event, and have come true just as they said they would?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No. The limitation on the scientific method is in the reliability of results.

​

I mean, you could use the scientific method to try to make a free energy machine, as many have done over the years, but at some point it is realized by most reasonable people that it just is not likely to happen.

---

The point being though is that we need to recognize that Science is always evolving when new data presents itself or we realize that we have misinterpreted the data? And in reference to bible prophecy, we can't close the book on the possibility that it is the Word of God. Would that not be a reasonable conclusion?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:The predictions have to be precise and detailed or they are worthless[/B][/QUOTE]Ezekiel 26
3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
4 'They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.
5 'She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD, 'and she will become spoil for the nations.
6 'Also her daughters who are on the mainland will be slain by the sword, and they will know that I am the LORD.'"
7 For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army.
8 "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you.
9 "The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.
10 "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached.
11 "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground.
12 "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water. 13 "So I will silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more.
14 "I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken," declares the Lord GOD.
15 Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre, "Shall not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall when the wounded groan, when the slaughter occurs in your midst?
16 "Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be appalled at you.
17 "They will take up a lamentation over you and say to you, 'How you have perished, O inhabited one, From the seas, O renowned city, Which was mighty on the sea, She and her inhabitants, Who imposed her terror On all her inhabitants!
18 'Now the coastlands will tremble On the day of your fall; Yes, the coastlands which are by the sea Will be terrified at your passing.'"
19 For thus says the Lord GOD, "When I make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and the great waters cover you,
20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lower parts of the earth, like the ancient waste places, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set glory in the land of the living.
21 "I will bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again," declares the Lord GOD.Would this prophecy qualify? It is detailed and precise. The city is called by name and there are specifics about its ultimate fate.

hi folks... interesting topic... sometimes tho i'm not sure everyone is talking about the same things when the terms go undefined... even the simple ones, such as 'science'... outside of "falsifiable" can we also agree that for a methodology to be considered scientific there needs to be more than that? or are other terms just understood? such as 'observable' and 'repeatable'... and don't forget inductive and deductive reasoning!! lots of folks like to leave those off... how's this?before something (anything) can be accepted as scientifically proven it must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable (in the context of 'testable')... then, given the limitations placed on humans by virtue of our limited lifespans, allow induction to guide you to, first, a theory or hypothesis and then test those theories for experimental results...the present discussion, can the bible be proven to be the word of God, probably can never be proven by this methodology... why? because, as the bible says (paraphrasing here), those who don't want to see (use inductive and/or deductive logic) won't see... they "hide the truth" from themselves... this means that the logic steps might be left out or denied...i noticed someone's signature about occam's razor... it always struck me as kinda funny that a lot of people say they (rightly so) believe in the truth of that, yet when it comes to questions of faith they tend to go the other way... if the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts is usually the right one, how can anyone deny the existence of a creator? oh well, think i'll read some more

now i think you're on the right track, chara... the first premise, 'the bible is the word of God', seemed too broad at first glance... seems better to me (maybe 'cause i'm a simple guy) to take smaller bites, kinda like you're about to eat an elephant... so when dealing with prophesy, take prophesies about specific things, then see if those fall into the category you're discussing..for example, there are oodles of prophesies (i think about 156 or some number like that) in the old testament about a coming Messiah... you mathmaticians out there can let the rest of us know, but the odds of *all* those prophesies being fulfilled in any one man are immense... so it seems that this could be one premise... "were the prophesies concerning the Messiah the word of God?"... then see if that can be tested scientifically...then take other prophesies, as you did concerning tyre, and ask the same of them... see? eatin' that ole elephant one bite at a time

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

Would this prophecy qualify? It is detailed and precise. The city is called by name and there are specifics about its ultimate fate.

---

Well, you are on the right track. However, I did some checking.Did you notice in the prophecy that Tyre shall be destroyed and never rebuilt? Well, it was sieged repeatedly and rebuilt. So much for that prophecy, eh?Secondly, Tyre was rich and powerful for a reason. It was located on a prime spot and had been repeatedly seiged for centuries. It is a no-brainer that it was going to be sieged again.Third, the prophecy was a couple of hundred years before the 'fall' Pick any major trade city of the time and and bet on a siege in the next two hundred years. The odds are for it. Tyre
another discusion of this very topic

Tyre was built on a large island with a nice port. A smaller island, was linked to the larger one, making the city approximately 2.5 miles in circumference. The outer walls of the city, facing the mainland shore, were 150 ft. high. It was a major trading centre and eventually, an extension of the city had to be built on the mainland. In the words of Dr. Fleming (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre Columbian University Press: New York, NY, 1915, p.8) "...Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable."Obviously, Ezekiel's prophecy would have been laughed at. If he had been trying to "make up" a prophecy, he probably would not have chosen Tyre (speculation tho' logical).The historian, Herodotus, relates that Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to Tyre from 585-572 B.C. In that seige, he was only able to take the mainland city and as a result simply laid a 13-year siege, stopping supplies to the island city, but not destroying it.Note that the prophecy says that many nations, not just Babylon will come against the city. So we see the prophecy saying that Neb will take the mainland, but "they" will throw Tyre's stones and timbers into the sea. Who are they?Moving on to 333 B.C., Alexander the Great demanded that Tyre allow him to occupy the island city. The King of Tyre would not allow that, so Alexander attacked. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Alexander didn't have any ships, so he completely destroyed the mainland city and dumped all of its debris into the ocean. Alex made a bridge and marched straight to Tyre.So, get this, the bridge that Alex built is the one that Zeke predicted .... "they will destroy the walls and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock."Remember, I said that Zeke predicted that many nations would come against Tyre? Well, the Seleucidae, the Romans, the Moslems, and finally the crusaders all took turns conquering Tyre, and it lay in ruins. Accorind to historian Nina Jidejian, "The port [of Tyre] has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for spreading nets." (Nina Jidejian, Tyre Through the Ages El-Mashreq Publishers: Beruit, 1969, p. 139 - emphasis mine)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?

i think the story of tyre is a good example of bible prophesy, but it's one of those that doubters (john appears to be such) will be able to point to and say, "yeah well maybe it's that way *now* but that doesn't mean it won't be rebuilt and destroyed many more times"... i sure wish zeke had been more specific as to whom would destroy the city, etc... is there another such in the bible that *is* more specific? where a prophet says something like "such and such will do this and that and it'll never be rebuilt/redone/etc?"i seem to recall babylon was another such prophesy, but i don't recall whether or not the destroyer was named... so had zeke said something like 'the crusaders will destroy tyre and it'll never be rebuilt" you still wouldn't win chara ... cause then someone would just do what i wrote above, abandon induction leading to deduction and say "it hasn't been rebuilt *yet*"see, if a person is intent on disbelieving a thing, that thing will be disbelieved... keeping an open mind and allowing our (dare i say God-given?) reasoning ability to function is the key... i think most here aren't so close-minded that they'll deny the place of intuitive and inductive logic

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
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*

​

Mark

---

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "you guys", but just in case I am one of the guys, if you've read the posts so far on this thread, I think you will see that I have not used that argument, nor will I. If we do that, we have strayed off of the Scientific Method, as I understand it (something about falsifiability). One thing I am trying to remember is that we cannot prove anything, but we certainly can explore the probability/possibility of something being true (oops or false, sorry my presupposition slipping in).Having said all that, I think that we have also established that conclusions/interpretations are at best tentative and can change over time.