Posted by felix a [angler] on April 09, 1999 at 21:39:02 {qzNMJDwJ.2JwrLA196zEXXuUsiPcoA}:
In Reply to: *"Science" Religionists posted by Follow up on April 08, 1999 at 19:42:16:
If you make a claim that a thing is true, it needs to be asked can it be false. Under what condition or conditions might it be found untrue. This is the process of falsifacation. A corner stone to the scientific process. The burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition, all I need do or anyone else need do is provide evidence that it is not true. It is not incumbent upon me to offer an alternative proposal to counter your explanation. One only prove that your theory is false and is in need of revision in order to explain the facts or evidence in the world around us.
So it doesn't matter that you may find an individual who provides an alternate explanation, what matters is that their explanation is falsifiable and cannot be falsified by the evidence at hand and is not shown to be false. If we are searching for truth this is not going to prove threatening to us and our beliefs.
Here in lies an area of distinction for the support of archeology for a texts accuracy, a text may have been transmitted to us in our day accurately. Even over a course of a thousand years or more. It may even be that some of what has been written may be accurate, however it does not mean all is accurate. And if some of it is inaccurate then the veracity of the whole is open to question if it is used to support a particular belief.
Regards,
Felix A