Scientific theory defined

[Detector]

Detector, can you tell me what science can actually 'test' in the Bible?

Take the story of Mosses leading the Israelites to the promise land. As has already been pointed out possible mistranslation from the original bible needs clarifying. It is now believed it was not the Red Sea but the Sea of Reeds. A much smaller sea making the event less spectacular and more plausible.

Just as science was used on the story of Custer's last stand, science could also examine, test(repeatable) and verify the event. Such a large group would surely leave evidence behind such as pottery shards. By testing and dating the relics they could determine if such an event occurred, when it occurred, who was there and the path taken.

As far as the missing link I am aware of the new information linking Neanderthal. Seems rather convenient to me that not long ago science determined and made the claim that Neanderthal was not related to man(homoerectes{sp}) but a different species that died out. Now new information makes that information false.

The idea the Neanderthal was not an ancestor of man was not a theory but supposedly fact. Now its oops we were wrong, here is the real facts. Science self-correcting? Is that just a more acceptable way of saying we were wrong?

In any case a missing link has yet to be found. Proof that Neanderthal may have mutated to modern man is far from proof that plants mutated to animals.

Since neither Moses nor the actual experience of the Hebrew tribes in Egypt can be confirmed -- the rest of the story is not important, but as a political statement for the people reading it -- and of course, with Aaron-ist adding his name to much of it.

There's nothing to test. And, of course, the complete change of the old testament Christian edition, from the much earlier five books of the Hebrews, confuses what was written at all.

I do think that the "I am that I am" name of the Hebrew god is a step forward in religious thinking -- certainly the one-god theory is interesting, although even that is not necessary. As I recall, the English version of some of the early books does have a god that states you shouldn't worship the other gods -- wonder which ones ?

Texts of Judaism

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by Detector

Take the story of Mosses leading the Israelites to the promise land. As has already been pointed out possible mistranslation from the original bible needs clarifying. It is now believed it was not the Red Sea but the Sea of Reeds. A much smaller sea making the event less spectacular and more plausible.

Just as science was used on the story of Custer's last stand, science could also examine, test(repeatable) and verify the event. Such a large group would surely leave evidence behind such as pottery shards. By testing and dating the relics they could determine if such an event occurred, when it occurred, who was there and the path taken.

As far as the missing link I am aware of the new information linking Neanderthal. Seems rather convenient to me that not long ago science determined and made the claim that Neanderthal was not related to man(homoerectes{sp}) but a different species that died out. Now new information makes that information false.

The idea the Neanderthal was not an ancestor of man was not a theory but supposedly fact. Now its oops we were wrong, here is the real facts. Science self-correcting? Is that just a more acceptable way of saying we were wrong?

In any case a missing link has yet to be found. Proof that Neanderthal may have mutated to modern man is far from proof that plants mutated to animals.

Well first of all Neanderthal didn't mutate into modern man. Homo erectus is not modern man, I think you know that but from your post it seems that is what you said. With the genomic testing they are able to give an approximate date of when Neanderthal and man split, this time period is thought to have been 1 million to 700,000 years ago (ie this is when the last common ancestor would have been living). Then fro some 300,000 years the populations are thought to have interbred because of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). From there, about 400,000 years ago it is thought that the populations had little interbreeding to maybe none at all and just co-existed until about 30,000 years ago. Now, scientists are searching the Neanderthal genome for more SNPs, that could possibly prove that there was interbreeding. Say, perhaps, a rare human SNP (present in 5% of the population or less) is found in the Neanderthal genome as the major SNP. This would point to evidence that the groups have indeed interbred. However, this is very difficult because of amination of cytosine (C base in DNA) over time. This makes the DNA code as a U (which isn't possible because uracil only occurs in RNA). However, when using PCR, the most accurate way to reproduce DNA, you are reading the chain available, and then reproduce a T to bond to the U. This makes the Neanderthal DNA look as it contains a lot more mutations than it really does, so to say it is challenging would be a large understatement. None the less, this is very exciting stuff!

[Detector]

Is there direct proof that Moses did exist? no, but then direct proof isn't always necessary.

What we do have is evidence of birth, Military campaign against Ethiopians, Israel's sojourn in Egypt, the slaughter of male infants, Exodus, and that Egypt was weakened by the 10 plagues. All testable and confirmed by Archeology.

My only complaint about science is the matter of fact manor in which its presented. I don't remember being taught in school that science was more theory/guess work and subject to change. I remember evolution being taught as a matter of fact and nothing said about it being a theory. And to pick and choose which theories they will test seems wrong.

To think these stories cannot be scientifically test is wrong.

[Zeb]

"Since neither Moses nor the actual experience of the Hebrew tribes in Egypt can be confirmed"

I don't know if confirmation is the word, but Moses involved in a flood is written in all 3 major writings including the Koran. They are very different stories on after the flood hit but none the less, simularites. There was no word for "Earth" or for "World". There was no difference between Regional and world wide, the word translated was chosen by the church. There are numerous confirmations of local floods with silt layers down deep enough to be confirmed to the time period along the Uphrates.

Science has proved however that the Ark could not have came to rest that high in the mountains. If water would have covered the earth in that short have time, no human could have been able to breath no mater where the water came from. We know how much water is in/on the earth and we know how much water is in the atmosphere.

My source was just on discovery channel "The real Noah's Ark story". I agree parts can be confirmed (like locations and floods) and other stuff can be easily debunked (like the Ark resting on top Mt. Ararhat [sp])

Reasonable people will see that the stories could have been true stories that were manipulated to serve their greater purpose, like teaching Morals or teaching Religion. There is always a place for Morals in life and alot of people have none.

[jeezeweeze]

Very interesting Un
It would take years to research all the references of the website. Just the tiny bit that I read of the author below,( Qur'an references) Seems the problems of mankind (as all of us know) is not in the God or Gods they worship. From what I can determine from religions is they all have common threads. The ancient wisdom's survive today because their core concepts remain applicable, regardless of the time. Things that don't work go extinct.

Governing the people from Moses til today has been a catch 22( Moses is referenced in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Didn't the ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics make reference to Moses?)

Anyway I found this interesting
8 &Qur'an 6:90; 11:31.

Would it spell perdition for our subjects if the provincial
and district governors were relieved of their
present absolute authority, whereby they function exactly
as they please, and were instead limited to equity
and truth, and if their sentences involving capital punishment,
imprisonment and the like were contingent
on confirmation by the &Shah and by higher courts in
the capital, who would first duly investigate the case
and determine the nature and seriousness of the crime,
and then hand down a just decision subject to the issuance
of a decree by the sovereign? If bribery and
corruption, known today by the pleasant names of gifts
and favors, were forever excluded, would this threaten
the foundations of justice? Would it be an evidence of
unsound thinking to deliver the soldiery, who are a
living sacrifice to the state and the people and brave
death at every turn, from their present extreme misery
and indigence, and to make adequate arrangements for
their sustenance, clothing and housing, and exert every
effort to instruct their officers in military science, and
supply them with the most advanced types of firearms
and other weapons?


+P15
would it constitute a deviation from what is right and
proper, if we were to strengthen our relationships with
neighboring countries, enter into binding treaties with
the great powers, foster friendly connections with well-disposed
governments, look to the expansion of trade
with the nations of East and West, develop our natural
resources and increase the wealth of our people?