Truthfulness of the Bible

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342949 wrote: All four are valid but to differing extents. It may have been hypothesized that the earth is round because the sun rose on one side and set on the other. But I could also put forth a hypothesis that states God is real, which is pure assumption, and it is now up to me to prove my hypothesis.


If you're working from the premise that God exists and then trying to find the evidence to prove it, it is still bad science however you dress it up.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1342957 wrote: If you're working from the premise that God exists and then trying to find the evidence to prove it, it is still bad science however you dress it up.But isn't a hypothesis scientific method, and not science per se.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342961 wrote: But isn't a hypothesis scientific method, and not science per se.


Nooooo! A hypothesis has to be formulated according to scientific method, anything less is speculation, not science.

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1342965 wrote: Nooooo! A hypothesis has to be formulated according to scientific method, anything less is speculation, not science.I thought thats what I said. A hypothesis is not science unless and until it becomes a theory, isn't that right?

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342967 wrote: I thought thats what I said. A hypothesis is not science unless and until it becomes a theory, isn't that right?


No, a hypothesis is science if it has been formulated according to scientific method, otherwise it is speculation.

Once a hypothesis has been put forward it is validated according to scientific method and, once validated, it becomes a theory.

What I think you are saying is that a hypothesis, according to scientific method, is not established until it becomes a theory - it is merely a proposal to be validated by experiment and observation but that does not make it any less scientific.

[koan]

Ted;1342887 wrote: Stephen Hawking has recently decided that a grand unified theory is not attainable. In fact he has said he must think over his whole concept of the nature of reality.

Yes, Dawkins does seem to have a problem. One scientist has attacked him on the basis of science. Will post that later. Soon time to go out.

Shalom

Ted

Shalom

Ted
oooh, can I guess?

Is it Francisco Ayala?

eta: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 076580.ece

[Ted]

koan

Actually no but I will report back when I get the book out.

Shalom

Ted