Science works first by stating what the hypothesis is. "The Bible is true" is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it is way too vague. Do we test the hypothesis that the Universe came about in 6 days? Do we test the hypothesis that the Earth was completely covered in water just 4,000 years ago? Do we test the hypothesis that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor?
We need something specific to test before we can show that it is wrong.
Hi,
Respectfully how can you say, that, The Bible is False, not true is not testable or us way too vague?
You have discussed Grant Research. Have you ever worked on research that deals with things that not only no one has worked on before, but, because of that all tools and instruments are invented also, because they too have not existed yet, and do not exist yet?
Typically, that is the only research I and others did for awhile. In that realm of work, where no one has done the work before, taking a guess at what the answer might be and trying to prove that guess wrong, is the norm.
Interdisiplinarily we all support each other in that guess, in trying to prove it wrong, in that methodology. Is that not done, where you have worked???
Can I prove The Bible is wrong, is the starting point.
And, when I did that, I succeeded. I proved that book wrong in two places.
Then, in the normal ways I sent that work out, and I sent it out as findings only. I sent it out, so that my humanness would not be too badly wounded if I said I was right without checking with others.
In a month or more a refutation came back on those two findings.
In another few months or so after finding appropriate people to send the findings to, a clear undeniable refutation came back. I looked. Yes, I did make an error in two places. That is how we did it in those days.
The rest is here also. After failing to prove that book wrong, it is not right yet. All I know is that I, me, myself, I, I cannot prove it wrong with using all I had and more.
Next, as is appropriate, I searched the world to see if anyone else had proven that book wrong, so I could use their results. No one had, in and about 1997. No one.
Stuck, it was time to take a break from all that, which is a normal requirement in research, to prevent personal burn out.
After that, and with all that was learned in trying to prove that book was wrong, I decided to try controlled experiments.
All researchers know how controlled experiments can produce no useful data. We have all done that at times. Other times a controlled experiment says that yes indeed what you are doing is in fact wrong.
No one knows the outcome of a controlled experiment when working on a problem that no one has ever worked on before.
As dumb as it sounds now to us, Goddard actually built a vacuum enclosure to see if rockets, worked in a vacuum. No one knew for sure. He was working on items no one had the answeres for back then.
Similarly, I did not know, nor care what the answers were for those Biblical controlled experiments were. I did not.
I only cared that I made no errors in carrying them out.mI also cared if they were valid controlled experiments.
I almost had to throw one of them out. It was because there was a single word in there, which in testing, I did actually not know the definition of. It resolved itself in testing though.
I felt horible. In testing, I found a flaw. So, I needed to throw out that controlled experiment.mI needed to scrap it. I ran it a little longer before scapping it. Soon, that one extra unknown variable was known. Thus, that experiment was still allowed to run, as there was then still only one change, one unknown.
The number of times I have done controlled experiments, is large and untrackable in science. I cannot believe almost that they are not as ordinary and recognizable,as a cup of coffee, by everyone. They are not.
LOVE,
