Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof. Let me explain.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

Keep up the good work bruddah.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

You obviously don't have true faith. If you have true faith, no amount of evidence, logic or science should sway you from your faith or what you believe in.

If you're trying to prove your faith or disprove the science or history that clashes with your faith, then you don't have faith because this inmplies you have doubts about your faith, you care what other people feel about your faith and you feel you must form a logical or scientific background for your faith.

I believe in ghosts. All science and logic states it doesn't exist. I acknowledge it. But I believe in ghosts anyway. I don't use logic or science to try and prove it. That's faith....

Originally posted by Draco69
You obviously don't have true faith. If you have true faith, no amount of evidence, logic or science should sway you from your faith or what you believe in.

If you're trying to prove your faith or disprove the science or history that clashes with your faith, then you don't have faith because this inmplies you have doubts about your faith, you care what other people feel about your faith and you feel you must form a logical or scientific background for your faith.

I believe in ghosts. All science and logic states it doesn't exist. I acknowledge it. But I believe in ghosts anyway. I don't use logic or science to try and prove it. That's faith....

He didn't post this for selfish reasons, he posted it for public consideration and examination so that you all can arrive at your own conclusion based on the information provided. What about that don't you understand?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
He didn't post this for selfish reasons, he posted it for public consideration and examination so that you all can arrive at your own conclusion based on the information provided. What about that don't you understand?

He shouldn't feel the need to post any examinations to make people draw conclusions. He shouldn't feel the need to disprove the notion that without scientific evidence, Jesus didn't exist.

He "KNOWS" already.

And Legal-Historical Proof is bull. I could write a book stating that a man named Clark Kent was the President of the United States and he ruled for over sixty years. If the book were to survive to the 300th Century could it taken as "evidence"?

No. It's bias.

Written/spoken testimony is bias through and through. People say and see different things about what they see. This forum is proof enough....

Originally posted by Draco69
He shouldn't feel the need to post any examinations to make people draw conclusions. He shouldn't feel the need to disprove the notion that without scientific evidence, Jesus didn't exist.

He "KNOWS" already.

And Legal-Historical Proof is bull. I could write a book stating that a man named Clark Kent was the President of the United States and he ruled for over sixty years. If the book were to survive to the 300th Century could it taken as "evidence"?

No. It's bias.

Written/spoken testimony is bias through and through. People say and see different things about what they see. This forum is proof enough....

Using your own rationale I could say that you shouldn't feel the need to post any response/comments finding fault with what someone else is doing. He perhaps feels about as strongly (perhaps more so) as you felt to post a response. You know already how you feel about his examinations and yet you wasted time responding did you not? All is fair in love and war.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your own rationale I could say that you shouldn't feel the need to post any response/comments finding fault with what someone else is doing. He perhaps feels about as strongly (perhaps more so) as you felt to post a response. You know already how you feel about his examinations and yet you wasted time responding did you not? All is fair in love and war.

He was not rationalizing. You say that just to insult him.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your own rationale I could say that you shouldn't feel the need to post any response/comments finding fault with what someone else is doing. He perhaps feels about as strongly (perhaps more so) as you felt to post a response. You know already how you feel about his examinations and yet you wasted time responding did you not? All is fair in love and war.

There's a difference. I'm using logic. He's using "faith". As a logical being, I feel the need to prove or make sense of things. As a faithful person, he shouldn't feel the need to prove or disprove or make any conjectures for his faith. Which he is. He's saying "let's ignore science and let's focus on this dusty 1000 year tome written by some Christian to prove that Christ was truely the Son of God."

He's not being an alturistic Christian. He has his own agenda to "prove" Christianity through "Legal-Historical" Proof. Keyword: PROOF.

He doesn't NEED proof NOR as a faithful person feel the need to post a logical perspective of proof to "prove" Christianity.

If he had true faith, he wouldn't feel the need to prove anything because he has faith no matter WHAT.....

Proof and Faith shouldn't go together.....

Originally posted by Draco69
There's a difference. I'm using logic. He's using "faith". As a logical being, I feel the need to prove or make sense of things. As a faithful person, he shouldn't feel the need to prove or disprove or make any conjectures for his faith. Which he is. He's saying "let's ignore science and let's focus on this dusty 1000 year tome written by some Christian to prove that Christ was truely the Son of God."

He's not being an alturistic Christian. He has his own agenda to "prove" Christianity through "Legal-Historical" Proof. Keyword: PROOF.

He doesn't NEED proof NOR as a faithful person feel the need to post a logical perspective of proof to "prove" Christianity.

If he had true faith, he wouldn't feel the need to prove anything because he has faith no matter WHAT.....

Proof and Faith shouldn't go together.....

I need to figure out how to communicate this in braile because you obviously cannot see that what you are saying is self-contradictory. He is not doing it for himself, people do not make cases for themselves they make them for others to consider. So, no HE doesn't need proof, but his listeners may need proof (initially). Although in the end they will still have to make the decision to come to Christ without it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I need to figure out how to communicate this in braile because you obviously cannot see that what you are saying is self-contradictory. He is not doing it for himself, people do not make cases for themselves they make them for others to consider. So, no HE doesn't need proof, but his listeners may need proof (initially). Although in the end they will still have to make the decision to come to Christ without it.

Honey, you have this like completely naive view of the world.

People argue and make cases purely so other people will listen to their cases?

Nooooo. They're trying to prove something to others. That's what "making a case" or "making an arguement" is about.

And JesusisAlive. Don't be snotty. Jesus wouldn't approve.

You're really no different. If your intention was to convert others to Christianity, it should be about offering faith in a higher power to others. Not spending hours on an Internet Forum arguing creation & evolution, trying to prove Christianity through Bibical quotes, and making logical analysis over figurative statements.

Which is why you're a failure of a Christian.

Originally posted by Draco69
Honey, you have this like completely naive view of the world.

People argue and make cases purely so other people will listen to their cases?

Nooooo. They're trying to prove something to others. That's what "making a case" or "making an arguement" is about.

And JesusisAlive. Don't be snotty. Jesus wouldn't approve.

You're really no different. If your intention was to convert others to Christianity, it should be about offering faith in a higher power to others. Not spending hours on an Internet Forum arguing creation & evolution, trying to prove Christianity through Bibical quotes, and making logical analysis over figurative statements.

Which is why you're a failure of a Christian.

Honey?!?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Honey?!?

It's a Southern thing....

I stand by what I said. I highly suggest you do what REAL Christians do and get out in the real world and join missionaries and volunteer Christian groups.

If you get to Heaven, and tell Jesus you spent most of your life arguing about Christianity on an KMC Forums, that wouldn't reflect well on you.....

Originally posted by Draco69
It's a Southern thing....

I stand by what I said. I highly suggest you do what REAL Christians do and get out in the real world and join missionaries and volunteer Christian groups.

If you get to Heaven, and tell Jesus you spent most of your life arguing about Christianity on an KMC Forums, that wouldn't reflect well on you.....

Men call other men honey down south?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Honey?!?

What a shock. Yes, there is a chance, you may be talking to a homosexual.



*Draco69 no insult intended*

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Men call other men honey down south?

Retarded men....

Like "Sweetie, your socks are supposed to go on your feet not your penis...."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What a shock. Yes, there is a chance, you may be talking to a homosexual.



*Draco69 no insult intended*

Be careful, JesusisAlive, it's a Satanic disease after all. I may or may not have it but do be careful! Spray some Lysol on your keyboard, quick!

Originally posted by Draco69
Be careful, JesusisAlive, it's a Satanic disease after all. I may or may not have it but do be careful! Spray some Lysol on your keyboard, quick!


Make sure it's a good heave coat.

This forum was created to engage in debate over the resurrection of Jesus Christ, more specifically, an indepth article written by William Lane Craig. Nothing of the sort was challenged and debated. My personal views have no bearing whatsoever in this debate. I simply made generalized statements regarding scientific and legal-historical proof. Scientific proof has a function, but not in regards to historical matters. In the case of both methods, evidence can be obtained and conclusions (beyond a reasonable doubt) can be reached. This have absolutely nothing to do with "blind-faith." From what I gathered from your responses, no forward progress has been made. Instead, this forum has been bombarded with proud, boastful, insufficient statements. I never even stated that I agreed with William Lane Craig. I left the matter open to objective criticism. I wanted a clean, intelligent debate. Read the article in its entirety, then voice yourself. Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument.

wow. this thread is stupid. The very fist sentence is nonsense.....and shows a complete lack of thought process or rationale.



who said that? It wasn't a scientist....or anybody with an I.Q. over 35. Here's why sweetie.

To validate something scientificly, you must first have a hypothesis to test. You must have a question before you can seek the answer to it. If something has already been verified scientificly, there is no point to further testing to establish it as truth....only further testing to expand the knowledge of the truth that has already been established. This leaves only the unknown to be hypothesized about......therefore only the unknown to seek scientific verification. If something has not been validated via scientific means and one believes anything that has not been validated via scientific means is false, there is no such thing as truth as nothing would have ever been tested in attempt for verification as truth as it is already false.

where did you get this statement from? Did that person have downsyndrome?

Evil Dead

Prove to me (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader; do this using scientific method. And lastly, you are taking my statements completely out of context.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow. this thread is stupid. The very fist sentence is nonsense.....and shows a complete lack of thought process or rationale.



who said that? It wasn't a scientist....or anybody with an I.Q. over 35. Here's why sweetie.

To validate something scientificly, you must first have a hypothesis to test. You must have a question before you can seek the answer to it. If something has already been verified scientificly, there is no point to further testing to establish it as truth....only further testing to expand the knowledge of the truth that has already been established. This leaves only the unknown to be hypothesized about......therefore only the unknown to seek scientific verification. If something has not been validated via scientific means and one believes anything that has not been validated via scientific means is false, there is no such thing as truth as nothing would have ever been tested in attempt for verification as truth as it is already false.

where did you get this statement from? Did that person have downsyndrome?

Don't insult debate.

#1. your statement was not taken out of context. you flat out stated that anything that people say that if something hasn't been proven scientificly it is false. This may be true......but those people must be legally retarded. I don't know who "those people" you were speaking of are.........but they possess no logic or rationale.

#2. Leader is a subjective term. It relies on an individual's perception......unless you're talking about an actual organization with rank. All that can be proven scientificly is that Martin Luther King Jr. did exist....via recorded observations by scientists, doctors.......and that he did particpate in what he himself declared as movement for equality of races, civil rights........also by recorded observations.

as you the words, "prove to me".......you seem to not know how science works. Nobody proves anything to anyone. People make observations of tangible evidence (matter) or data related to it and record them. Those records either support a hypothesis or they do not. If it does support a hypothesis, it becomes fact. Those recorded observations and tangible evidence remain in existence for any person who chooses to question them. There is no, "you prove it to me".......it's "you tell me where the evidence is so I can go look at it for myself". Science does not take someone's word for it.......the evidence remains for all who choose to view it to observe. If I were you.......I'd start by finding his birth and death certificates.......then go to a national archive to find recorded observations (written, audible and visual recorded observations) to view for yourself him using the words civil rights.

I don't see "moderator" anywhere under your name. report me to someone who matters if you think I am out of line in any topic of discussion.

any person who would make at claim that contradicts the premise of the claim is indeed stupid by most standards. There is no debating that.

I'm still waiting for ushom to tell us all exactly who this person or people were that make the contradictory claim.

Evil Dead

Yes, you did quote me out of context! Being something that cannot be proven scientifically is a matter that others have proclaimed, not myself. Scientific method is limited to scope; it cannot prove that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. For the latter, we must refer to legal-historical proof. For what topics that cannot be proven scientifically, legal-historical proof picks up where scientific proof falls short. We must understand the ability of both methods!

And your speech about the term "leader" being "subjective" is ludicrous in regards to Martin Luther King Jr. Their is nothing subjective about it. Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. On Januray 15th, 2007, we will celebrate the 21st Federal holiday of Martin Luther King Jr.. He was a leader for all African-Americans during the movement, just like Malcom-X.

Please, let's get back on track and debate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, primarily the article written by William Lane Craig.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Scientific method is limited to scope; it cannot prove that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader.


That is wrong. The scientific method can look at history for evidence. I don't know where you are learning this stuff, but you will not do well in college with that kind of thinking.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false.

Ummm. Not it isn't.

If something can not be proven scientifically often one of two things happen:

We can see that there is potential and it theoretically works, but we lack the sufficient means to test it (which has happened plenty when old scientific theories unprovable at the time can now be confirmed or disproved due to progress over the years.)

Or

We can see there is good reason why it can't be proven: Because it doesn't work, it is false.

If I wrote a book claiming that, theoretically, the key to immortality is dancing on the sun in a special anti-incinteration suit - well, it would be unprovable as no such thing exists. But still, logically it is, false, and rightly so despite the fact it can't be "scientifically" disproven. You need to be considering the actual scientific process, the hypothesis, the testing and the like, and you will see that you claim there, and in the rest of your post, does not in fact work.

But anyway - you are confusing scientific process in with historical validity and so on. Study some history and you can find out that in fact it is possible to create quite an accurate record of a person, despite the fact we can't use science on them personally, take their blood, get them to take a lie detector. Historically/legally we have documents evidence supported in corroboration with other documents evidence. Then there is artifacts, art and so on. This can be put together into a proverbially binding bit of history. The difference then, as you are getting at, with say, the Bible, is the Bible is not all that well supported by other corroborative evidence, or archaeological, or scientific.

Shakyamunison and Imperial Samura-

Scientific method is "limited" in scope! Bare with me. Loosely worded, scientific method proves (beyond a resonable doubt) occurances in natural, and how the laws of physics govern our universe. Ice floats on water; we human beings can prove that utilizing scientific method. We can reach that conclusion based on evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). All the same, such occurrences are repeatable, and can be verified time and time again within controlled laboratory environments. Yes, in dealing with historical issues, their may be matters that call upon scientific method to verify "certain" matters of fact- DNA analysis to pin point a murderer for instance aside from (or in addition to) eye witness testimony, for instance. In any case, dealing with that "particular" issue, scientific method helped draw objective conclusions as to who the murderer was based upon DNA analysis, not legal-historical proof! With any topic, one or (even) both methods may be used to reach sound conlusions (beyond a reasonable doubt). Regardless, both methods have a function and are limited in scope. You cannot prove that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader analyzing his DNA! That is the job of legal-historical proof!! And you cannot prove that certain DNA strainds belong to Martin Luther King Jr. using legal-historical proof!! They are limited in scope. Both are tools used to find and note objective truth; we must know what method is appropriate for whatever topic is in question. Understand?

Can we get back on track please and focus on the topic. This is my original opening on page one on this forum:

It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false.

No one really thinks this. Get a grip.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison and Imperial Samura-

Scientific method is "limited" in scope! Bare with me. Loosely worded, scientific method proves (beyond a resonable doubt) occurances in natural, and how the laws of physics govern our universe. Ice floats on water; we human beings can prove that utilizing scientific method. We can reach that conclusion based on evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). All the same, such occurrences are repeatable, and can be verified time and time again within controlled laboratory environments. Yes, in dealing with historical issues, their may be matters that call upon scientific method to verify "certain" matters of fact- DNA analysis to pin point a murderer for instance aside from (or in addition to) eye witness testimony, for instance. In any case, dealing with that "particular" issue, scientific method helped draw objective conclusions as to who the murderer was based upon DNA analysis, not legal-historical proof! With any topic, one or (even) both methods may be used to reach sound conlusions (beyond a reasonable doubt). Regardless, both methods have a function and are limited in scope. You cannot prove that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader analyzing his DNA! That is the job of legal-historical proof!! And you cannot prove that certain DNA strainds belong to Martin Luther King Jr. using legal-historical proof!! They are limited in scope. Both are tools used to find and note objective truth; we must know what method is appropriate for whatever topic is in question. Understand?

And? Your legal historical proof is there. MLK Jr. was a public figure whose words and actions have been historically recorded and as a result can be used to create a historical image viewed accurate. It borders on absurdity to attempt to discredit scientific method by claiming scientific method can't prove MLK Jr. was what is claimed he was. It doesn't have to - that isn't its purpose, just like it isn't its purpose to prove Caesar was a general by measuring his cranium.

Historical process - scientific process. Both with different aims. Of course they are limited in aims, just like I can't play tennis with a golf club I don't expect a geologist to be able to analyse a psychological problem. Just like I don't expect expect a historian to necessarily be able to explain the metaphysical poets. Different disciplines, different fields (humanities/science) - it does not make the work of claims of either any less valid - nor does strange twisting of definitions as you are doing somehow make views with no actual proof (that is the resurrection) any more likely because you can say "But science can't verify whether Napoleon was French, only Legal-History can?"

I feel like an ass. Well put.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison and Imperial Samura-

Scientific method is "limited" in scope! Bare with me. Loosely worded, scientific method proves (beyond a resonable doubt) occurances in natural, and how the laws of physics govern our universe. Ice floats on water; we human beings can prove that utilizing scientific method. We can reach that conclusion based on evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). All the same, such occurrences are repeatable, and can be verified time and time again within controlled laboratory environments. Yes, in dealing with historical issues, their may be matters that call upon scientific method to verify "certain" matters of fact- DNA analysis to pin point a murderer for instance aside from (or in addition to) eye witness testimony, for instance. In any case, dealing with that "particular" issue, scientific method helped draw objective conclusions as to who the murderer was based upon DNA analysis, not legal-historical proof! With any topic, one or (even) both methods may be used to reach sound conlusions (beyond a reasonable doubt). Regardless, both methods have a function and are limited in scope. You cannot prove that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader analyzing his DNA! That is the job of legal-historical proof!! And you cannot prove that certain DNA strainds belong to Martin Luther King Jr. using legal-historical proof!! They are limited in scope. Both are tools used to find and note objective truth; we must know what method is appropriate for whatever topic is in question. Understand?

Why do you think the people who do "legal-historical proof" don't use the scientific method?


I think you should read this.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I use the scientific method all the time in politics.

Its called logic.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html Your example is way off, for one the person opposing your view can interview your witness and see what their motive is and see if they are lying to back up your story because of whatever reason or telling the truth about the event. This by no means counts as proof because the legal system holds eyewitness accounts with great scrutiny because of the impressions and feelings of the witness.

Part one:
Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

Part two:
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car."

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

smartass

Originally posted by ThePittman
smartass

Are you calling me a smartass?

Yes.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes.

I wasn't talking to you.

...?

As previously stated, the article written by William Lane Craig is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; I gave the article its due respect and "actually" read it in its entirety. Has anyone else for the matter? I was sincerely interested to learn (or consider) what Mr. Craig had to state, since he has devoted so much of his life to this particular field and more. In the end, I had something to think about. And I think you will too. Below is a brief insert of the article.

"Turning next to the external evidence for the gospels' authenticity, Vernet argues that the disciples must have left some writings, engaged as they were in giving lessons to and counseling believers who were geographically distant. And what could these writings be if not the gospels and epistles themselves? Similarly, Paley reasons that eventually the apostles would have needed to publish accurate narratives of Jesus' history, so that any spurious attempts would be discredited and the genuine gospels preserved. Moreover, Vernet continues, there were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Most importantly, the extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the gospels to their traditional authors.

No finer presentation of this point can be found than Paley's extensive eleven-point argument. First, the gospels and Acts are cited by a series of authors, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles and continuing in regular and close succession. This is the strongest form of historical testimony, regularly employed to establish authorship of secular works; and when this test is applied to the gospels, their authenticity is unquestionably established. Paley traces this chain of testimony from the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas all the way up to Eusebius in A.D. 315. Less presents similar evidence, and concludes that there is better testimony for the authenticity of the NT books than for any classical work of antiquity.

Second, the Scriptures were quoted as authoritative and as one-of-a-kind. As proof Paley cites Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolitus, Origen, and many others.

Third, the Scriptures were collected very early into a distinct volume. Ignatius refers to collections known as the Gospel and the Apostles, what we today call the gospels and the epistles. According to Eusebius, about sixty years after the appearance of the gospels Quadratus distributed them to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writings we call the NT.

Fourth, these writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as Scriptures, divine writings, and so forth.

Fifth, these writings were publicly read and expounded. Citations from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian go to prove the point.

Sixth, copies, commentaries, and harmonies were written on these books. Noteworthy in this connection is Tatian's Diatessaron, a harmony of the four gospels, from about A.D. 170. With the single exception of Clement's commentary on the Revelation of Peter, Paley emphasizes, no commentary was ever written during the first 300 years after Christ on any book outside the NT

Seventh, the Scriptures were accepted by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples include the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others.

Eighth, the gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter were received without doubt as authentic even by those who doubted the authenticity of other books now in the canon. Caius about A.D. 200 reckoned up about thirteen of Paul's letters, but insisted that Hebrews was not written by Paul. About twenty years later Origen cites Hebrews to prove a particular point, but noting that some might dispute the authority of Hebrews, he states that his point may be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture and quotes Matthew and Acts. Though he expresses doubt about some books, Origen reports that the four gospels alone were received without dispute by the whole Church of God under heaven.

Ninth, the early opponents of Christianity regarded the gospels as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded. Celsus admitted that the gospels were written by the disciples. Porphyry attacked Christianity as found in the gospels. The Emperor Julian followed the same procedure.

Tenth, catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, which always contained the gospels and Acts. Paley supports the point with quotations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others.

Eleventh, the so-called apocryphal books of the NT were never so treated. It is a simple fact, asserts Paley, that with a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever even quoted by any known author during the first three hundred years after Christ. In fact, there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four gospels and Acts were written. The apocryphal gospels were never quoted, were not read in Christian assemblies, were not collected into a volume, were not listed in the catalogues, were not noticed by Christianity's adversaries, were not appealed to by heretics, and were not the subject of commentaries or collations, but were nearly universally rejected by Christian writers of succeeding ages.

Therefore, Paley concludes, the external evidence strongly confirms the authenticity of the gospels. Even if it should be the case that the names of the authors traditionally ascribed to the gospels are mistaken, it still could not be denied that the gospels do contain the story that the original apostles proclaimed and for which they labored and suffered.

Taken together, then, the internal and external evidence adduced by the Christian apologists served to establish the first step of their case, that the gospels are authentic."

that long post means nothing. You give an 11 point arguement........but fail to post the one thing that is the ultimate agruement killer. Those writings were made by believers, they are not unbiased documentary record. There is a bias and agenda. The agenda is based soly on the statements within those accounts given. Therefore, to further their agenda, their writings must adhere to their bias view.

If we were to take Hitler's biased views presented to further his agenda.......Jews must be destroyed to preserve the purity of the aryan race. Are you proclaiming him to be correct aswell? I mean......his word has several advantages over the accounts given in the gospels. We do infact know the exact person who was giving those views. We do know he was an intelligent and educated man. Would his words not stand up moreso than those of some uneducated, unknowledgable ancient men who's existence has not yet been proven....or even that it was seperate men and not one man writing under several different pen names?

biased accounts given to further an agenda mean nothing......less than nothing. you want something with a bit of credibility? show me a Rabbi who proclaims these gospels as truths.......hell, anybody who does not have a bias nor agenda to promote.

a UFO nut reporting that they "done seen a bright light over yonder in the sky with aliens a drivin' it" has no creedence whatsoever. Their status as UFO nut already promotes a bias and an agenda. Now if Mr. Stephen Hawking wants to tell me about the UFO he saw, I'm all ears.

Originally posted by ushomefree
It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.

Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.

With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.

The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.

William Lane Craig: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/vita-pubs.html

The Resurrection of Jesus: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

what exactly is the purpose of this post...to prove that the people who wrote the bible were real people is what it appears to be which to me seems to be spurious and irrelevant...as are the analogies

Let me say something outright, right now.

Up until this point, i have managed to take certain memeber's posts seriously, but from this thread, I see I have been greatly mistaken.


And this is to a majority people who posted in this thread.
Do you know why you hate Christians so much?

Because you are EXACTLY the same as the fundamentalist you hate.
And it bothers you because you see yourself in everything they do.

You do not open mind to anything other than what YOU believe, and furthermore, through insult and extreamly inpolite paragraphs try to depict others posts and convince how everyone else is stupid but you.

Sound familiar?

Its actually almost everyone who answered in this thread with such an arrogance and authority.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, you act exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.

''EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I DO - WAAAAAAAA''


I'm so convinced!

was that toward the Christians? 'cause the majority of us don't ramble on about "beliefs".......we ramble on about proven facts and truths and ask that others rambling on about invisible people living in the sky stalking us, bushes lit afire that do not burn and other fantastic paranormal events to please put fourth the facts and truths to support their ramblings.

you tell me you own a pink unicorn who frolics in your backyard with your purple dragon and expect me to take your word without any proof, evidence or facts presented? Then why would you expect any less when you ramble on about invisible people living in the sky, watching you like a stalker, judging you who stops occasionally to rape a virgin who will hence give birth to a half human/half invisible man hybrid which can walk on water......die....resurrect...promising to return again one day.

Evil Dead-

We can refrain from future statements about matters of fact being verified, whether historical or scientific, by all available resources; I am a proponent of such measures. "Blind" faith requires intellectual suicide, and I am not asking that of my readers, to include yourself. This forum was created in light of an article written by William Lane Craig. And yes, he does have an agenda, but that in itself does not discredit his credentials, much like Stephen Hawking or any other "subject matter expert" within their respective field(s). William Lane Craig is not a layman. I simply challenged my readers to read his article in its "entirety" and reach a conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) based upon the evidence provided, however strong or weak. No one (to my recollection) has done so! Instead, this forum has been bombarded with fancy, arrogant statements having zero impact on the issue. In order to "effectively" participate in this forum, you must be fair; you must read the article in its "entirety." Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument. We all have opinions, and I welcome them, but you must read the article. You must be thorough.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Evil Dead-

We can refrain from future statements about matters of fact being verified, whether historical or scientific, by all available resources; I am a proponent of such measures. "Blind" faith requires intellectual suicide, and I am not asking that of my readers, to include yourself. This forum was created in light of an article written by William Lane Craig. And yes, he does have an agenda, but that in itself does not discredit his credentials, much like Stephen Hawking or any other "subject matter expert" within their respective field(s). William Lane Craig is not a layman. I simply challenged my readers to read his article in its "entirety" and reach a conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) based upon the evidence provided, however strong or weak. No one (to my recollection) has done so! Instead, this forum has been bombarded with fancy, arrogant statements having zero impact on the issue. In order to "effectively" participate in this forum, you must be fair; you must read the article in its "entirety." Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument. We all have opinions, and I welcome them, but you must read the article. You must be thorough.

Your readers? Are you a columnist?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Let me say something outright, right now.

Up until this point, i have managed to take certain memeber's posts seriously, but from this thread, I see I have been greatly mistaken.


And this is to a majority people who posted in this thread.
Do you know why you hate Christians so much?

Because you are EXACTLY the same as the fundamentalist you hate.
And it bothers you because you see yourself in everything they do.

You do not open mind to anything other than what YOU believe, and furthermore, through insult and extreamly inpolite paragraphs try to depict others posts and convince how everyone else is stupid but you.

Sound familiar?

Its actually almost everyone who answered in this thread with such an arrogance and authority.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, you act exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.

''EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I DO - WAAAAAAAA''


I'm so convinced!

A strong over-reaction. The sicentific method can be applied to every form of study. This "legal-historical proof" is not a valid concept. All the parts of it that are valid utilize the scientific method, just liek every field of academic sicence (physical, biological, and social) today.

Alliance-

So... if what you say is true, you could prove (for example) that you went shopping for a new pair of shoes at the Towson Plaza on friday of last week using scientific method? That is utterly amazing. Please explain; test your theory! And do not use "whatsoever"any historical evidence, because (as you already stated) it is "not valid." Enlighten me. Just utilize scientific method. This should be interesting, no doubt!

Originally posted by Alliance
A strong over-reaction. The sicentific method can be applied to every form of study. This "legal-historical proof" is not a valid concept. All the parts of it that are valid utilize the scientific method, just liek every field of academic sicence (physical, biological, and social) today.

Ok, I overreacted a little. Trolls on the boards contributed to that.

I complitely agree with scientific method, and I also tend to disagree that the 'withnessing' can be such a good indiciation of what happened.

(Criminal Justice has proven this over and over again)

I was just pissed at how some people in this thread replied - in a very rude manner instead of a proper debate.

It reminded me of the rude preaching of the religious people. The very same thing I, and I persume you, don't like.

''this thread is stupid, you are stupid'' isn't very constructive.