Scientific theory defined

"Is history not a branch of science"

No. History is much, much larger than science. History of myths, such as the Bible, for example, or of legends .... Much different. There is, of course, a history of science.

Buddha was much closer to truth about the universe -- infinite stars, infinite space, atoms, etc., than any religious writing before or after. Recommend you read some of that if you want to see science in a type of religious book -- although Buddha would never answer questions about life after death issues -- it doesn't matter -- this life is where we are; and of course, there's no 'god' as such in Buddhism.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"Is history not a branch of science"

No. History is much, much larger than science. History of myths, such as the Bible, for example, or of legends .... Much different. There is, of course, a history of science.

Buddha was much closer to truth about the universe -- infinite stars, infinite space, atoms, etc., than any religious writing before or after. Recommend you read some of that if you want to see science in a type of religious book -- although Buddha would never answer questions about life after death issues -- it doesn't matter -- this life is where we are; and of course, there's no 'god' as such in Buddhism.

There isn't a dog?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by lurker

There isn't a dog?

There are plenty of dog's. I see them every day, and all the sh!t they leave behind.

[Jolly Rancher]

History is written by the perspective of the writer. It also changes (look at recent history such as Watergate, the Kennedy Assassination, the Twin Towers)

[lurker]

Hisstory

[Detector]

History to me is not a branch of science.

Perhaps this explains why our opinions differ.

As I said I've always thought of science as a method or action that is performed by many fields or branches. For example take the Medical field. Medical Science would be the study, examined, tested, and verified of a medical related subject.

Maybe I'm just simplifying things, but it seems to me that stories of the bible, as well as other literature, could be scientifically tested.

History of myths, such as the Bible

Myths? If science can find, date, and verify a city's destruction as written in the bible how is that myth? Just because the writers interpretation of the cause is wrong doesn't make the event a myth.

If you choose to focus on the the suggestion that Mosses raised his staff and God through him parted the sea then you have nothing to test. If you choose to see a large group of people that fled through the desert while being pursued by a more powerful force who escape by outwitting their pursuers, then you have a very testable event.

You get out of the bible what you choose to see. What I see is the teaching of honesty and goodwill toward your fellow man. At its heart is "do onto others as you would have them do unto you." Not a bad bit of advice in my opinion.

For me I see documentation of historical value of a peoples struggle over persecution for their beliefs. Seems times haven't changed much. When we read other writings of ships ladened with valuables that were eaten by sea monsters do we write them off as myths? Oh course not. We take the event very seriously and the sea monster as simply the interpretation of people with little understanding of natural events.

Sure today with our superior intellect think the sea monster the result of less educated minds, but to the sailors of the time these monsters were very real. As real as the ship and treasure sent to Davy Jones. So to write off the historical value of this real event just because we see it as a myth would be a injustice to science. Besides, didn't science recently discover an unknown species of giant squid that could account for sea monsters of the past? A myth remains a myth until science has the incentive to test it.

The reason the bible can't be debunked is real simple. Its based on facts. Its real tough to debunk a fact. The bible contains stories of real people and real events written honestly to the best of the writers ability at the time.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Detector

...Sure today with our superior intellect think the sea monster the result of less educated minds, but to the sailors of the time these monsters were very real. As real as the ship and treasure sent to Davy Jones. So to write off the historical value of this real event just because we see it as a myth would be a injustice to science. Besides, didn't science recently discover an unknown species of giant squid that could account for sea monsters of the past? A myth remains a myth until science has the incentive to test it...

Consider the legends about the Bermuda Triangle and Lock Ness over the last few decades as a modern equivalent. Strange things have been suggested.

"do onto others as you would have them do unto you."

Better: "do not onto others as you would not have them do unto you." That other one leads to weirdness.

[Detector]

Better: "do not onto others as you would not have them do unto you." That other one leads to weirdness.

LOL

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by Detector

The reason the bible can't be debunked is real simple. Its based on facts. Its real tough to debunk a fact. The bible contains stories of real people and real events written honestly to the best of the writers ability at the time.

That is not true. Have we found the ark? We can't even find the covenant which SOOOO many people have looked for. How can we even take the Bible seriously from a scientific point of view when we aren't even able to read the actual book? What we see now isn't the Bible as it was meant to be. Heck, there was never even meant to be a Bible. All it was, was a bunch of writings by a bunch of people that thought God had beckoned them to write. Now, why didn't all of those writings get included into the Bible? Where are there only 4 Gospels? There were far more written than just 4. Its easy, because the early Church didn't want them included. They switched around books, added and subtracted as they felt they would better serve their cause. How can you take the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' seriously when the organization that it stands for has waged war after war onto innocent people? You can find facts in anything if you look hard enough, rather if you believe something with enough zeal. Thats why the Bible will never be debunked. As long as you have people willing to fight to the death for it, people who either don't care or won't listen to why it is incorrect, it will never be able to be debunked no matter how much factual, scientific evidence is presented against it.