Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Scientific Proof of the Supernatural


Dave210
 Share

Recommended Posts

Science is only a list of known facts. It is men with vision and perception that make advancements and science only verifies their revelation and new knowledge. ;)

it was mans vision and perceptions that created science to begin with.... don't forget all ideologies/constructs disciplines etc etc... are made up and interpreted by humans.......

Edited by Tangerine Sheri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dr. Peter Venkman

    29

  • Sherapy

    17

  • ravergirl

    33

  • AlexG

    14

Not so. If you think science is only a list of facts, you don't know what science is.

Science is a process tool used by men with vision and perception. It is not an entity unto itself :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. If you think science is only a list of facts, you don't know what science is.

Breath, Alex, breathe. Just relax while I sit here miffed that you got to this before I could.

Science is hardly a list of facts. That's an encyclopedia. Science is about understanding those facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breath, Alex, breathe. Just relax while I sit here miffed that you got to this before I could.

Science is hardly a list of facts. That's an encyclopedia. Science is about understanding those facts.

Bravo!!!!!. It must come back to science and not superstition if we are to have any understanding at all. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. If you think science is only a list of facts, you don't know what science is.

I don't think you know what science is. You are all about telling people what they don't know and kind of short on filling them in.

Edited by ravergirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you know what science is. You are all about telling people what they don't know and kind of short on filling them in.

Ravergirl, I'm not about to attempt remedial science education for you.

When you grow up, take some courses, do some reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravergirl, I'm not about to attempt remedial science education for you.

When you grow up, take some courses, do some reading.

Thats fine, I don't need you to tell me what science is or isn't because you pretty much contridict yourself when you start trying to explain it. I know that if I have need to be told im wrong I can just say it to you, and if i need to know WHY I am wrong I can ask a handful of other people.

Irish has a point...

"Science says" is the response we get a lot on UM. and "thats not what science does" is said a lot. I can only figure that "Science says" because "Scientists do"

Edited by ravergirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats fine, I don't need you to tell me what science is or isn't because you pretty much contridict yourself when you start trying to explain it. .

You desperately need some basic education in science before you can understand anything.

I know that if I have need to be told im wrong I can just say it to you...

If you just assume you're wrong, you're pretty much right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You desperately need some basic education in science before you can understand anything.

not really...Science is the process by which 'stuff' is discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not really...Science is the process by which 'stuff' is discovered.

It's worse than I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, the book can be interpreted to meet whatever objective one desires......thats the point that is being made IMO ...

perhaps a closer look will reveal that religion has decided what questions will be asked .....

Right on the money Sheri.

Science is a process tool used by men with vision and perception. It is not an entity unto itself :tu:

Regarding the italics: Exactly. "Science" isn't something tangible, its a methodology by which we may learn more about things. Science ultimately is the work that scientists put into their studies and experiments. Too many people are uneducated as to what science is and says and does. There are no "proofs" in science, only evidence. For instance, I recently did a Lab where we identified small rodents based off of their skull anatomy: Mainly, the size and shape of their incisors, molars, and mandibles. Now, the remains I had strongly suggested that the animal had once been a Vole, but thats only based on the evidence. I can't know absolutely for certain that it was a Vole, but both positive and negative evidences suggested that it was a Vole. So thats that, really.

Ravergirl, I'm not about to attempt remedial science education for you.

When you grow up, take some courses, do some reading.

Dude, don't even bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worse than I thought.

You mean to tell me that 'process of discovery' is that much different than 'methodology of learning?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can remain civil here, regardless of how vehemently we disagree. This seems like it's about to get ugly. We aren't even on topic anymore. Whether or not Rave understands science is irrelevant. We should worry about whether or not dave123... or whatever his name is, understands science.

Love, Peace, and Chicken Grease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can remain civil here, regardless of how vehemently we disagree. This seems like it's about to get ugly. We aren't even on topic anymore. Whether or not Rave understands science is irrelevant. We should worry about whether or not dave123... or whatever his name is, understands science.

Love, Peace, and Chicken Grease!

Awwwww. :wub:

I do recall that I do not agree with the OPs method of discovery, and that some sort of 'proof' of the supernatural can not be pulled out of tha bible. To the degree that ghosts do not exist because there are ghost stories.

But if the OP can offer some actual scientific evidence that backs up the biblical account(s) that it would be pretty cool.

I would think that this is progress towards the manner of thinking that you guys think that I should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awwwww. :wub:

I do recall that I do not agree with the OPs method of discovery, and that some sort of 'proof' of the supernatural can not be pulled out of tha bible. To the degree that ghosts do not exist because there are ghost stories.

But if the OP can offer some actual scientific evidence that backs up the biblical account(s) that it would be pretty cool.

I would think that this is progress towards the manner of thinking that you guys think that I should have.

Like i said, lets see what he comes up with. I think he would be better off going with your geological research rather than the computer models and the eclipse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a scenario I would like you to consider. I also have a hunch that this scenario could have been the force that put the wobble into the Earth’s total motion when the solar system was put back into play again. The Creator always has control over His Creation.

Hypothesis: Given that the movement of our Sun in the solar system is abruptly and completely stopped, and suspended in space, the resulting movement of the Earth would break free from the Ecliptic and continue in its upward path and natural rotation. This resulting movement of the Earth would agree with Newton’s laws of motion, and with the natural law of conservation of angular momentum.

I believe that God has left us with a scientific (natural) proof of the (supernatural) cause of the three hour period of darkness, which occurred when Jesus was crucified. It is not a natural cause, since a solar eclipse is naturally impossible during the full moon of Passover. Given that the scenario mentioned above began at noon Jerusalem time, it is my belief that an eclipse would have occurred within several minutes, when the Earth’s Southern Hemisphere would have eclipsed the Sun’s light headed for the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere. It is my further belief that many countries within the Mediterranean area would have experienced this darkness. Furthermore, I believe that the relative position of the Sun from Jerusalem’s vantage point at the time of the eclipse would have been around the ninth hour (around 3 p.m. position in the sky), with a defection of the sun’s usual path as well. In other words, it appeared as though three hours had elapsed (time perceived by Sun’s position in the sky) in a period of only several minutes (time perceived by the actual rotation of the Earth).

Dave I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if all this has been said before.

Precession (the Earth's wobble) is down to a few factors. Firstly, there is the fact the Earth is not symmetrical around its' axis of rotation, and any body being thus will undergo precession. Secondly, the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon also cause a mass bulge around the Earth's equatorial region (this adds to the asymmetry the Earth naturally has). This adds to the precessional motion of the Earth. There are other factors such as gravitational pull from other bodies. Irrespective of God 'stopping the Sun', the Earth would undergo precession.

An eclipse of the sun is not caused by one hemisphere of the Earth 'blocking' the sun from the other hemisphere. That phenomenon is called 'night-time' and happens once every 24 hours (approx) on every place on the planet.

I agree with Chauncy that the likely explanation for the seeming incongruity between the solar eclipse and the date presumed for the crucifixion (April) is the date is incorrect (if we assume there was an eclipse on the day and the event of the crucifixion was an actual historical event - not one of the 'Dying God' myths which do sometimes include such solar phenomena.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the Moderator:

Since I cannot edit my post, I will give you permission to change the title from, "Scientific Proof of the Supernatural", to "Scientific Experiment to Prove the Supernatural".

To the Discussion Group:

I want to apology to everyone. In my haste to post this topic thread I did not choose my words carefully. If the moderator would be so kind as to change the title I would be very grateful. I hope that the new title will be more agreeable to everyone. I also wanted to inform everyone that my grandmother passed away on 12/1/08, and was buried on 12/6/08. I lived with my grandmother, and above her for over twenty one years. She also had a live-in caretaker for the past five years. She was like a second mother to me. The computer simulation experiment is for everyone, to either prove or to disprove. If you have the necessary resources, money, technology, time, etc., go for it. I will continue to pursue this experiment myself and hopefully come up with the necessary resources.

I wanted to leave you with a thought to ponder. Not all truths leave evidence. Many years ago I was traveling back alone to the Naval Air Station in Lemoore, CA from Fresno on a foggy night. I stopped briefly at a stoplight that had just turned red, and then sped through the intersection. It is a fact, it happened. I didn't see any other cars or headlights, so I sped through. Just because there is no evidence that this event happened, does not necessarily make it a falsehood. If you believe in this truth, you would be doing so by faith. In life, there are many such truths that leave no evidence, or where the evidence has been deteriorated or destroyed. If you are honest with yourselves, you probably all have had life experiences similar to the above, where you either have to believe someone else's account on faith, or a friend or family member has to have faith in your account in order to believe you. Thank God that He has left us with some evidence that we cannot erase or tear down. You are right that the majority of this evidence is historically Scriptural. For the just shall live by faith. It is your choice to deny it outright, or to deny it by erasing some of the evidence (secular accounts of the eclipse during the full moon), or to accept the account on faith in God's Word. I'm curious, if the computer simulation proves the hypothesis, how would you answer this question if it were posed to you by God someday? Why did you accept truths in your life that had no evidence, yet you have refused to accept the Truths I have given you with evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very sorry to hear about your grandmother, Dave. I hope it was peaceful and without pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my anticipated book, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lamb of God", I write:

There's a term for quoting yourself; it's "academic m********ion." Being able to quote your own words hardly makes you a reliable source.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Chauncy that the likely explanation for the seeming incongruity between the solar eclipse and the date presumed for the crucifixion (April) is the date is incorrect (if we assume there was an eclipse on the day and the event of the crucifixion was an actual historical event - not one of the 'Dying God' myths which do sometimes include such solar phenomena.)

As I understand it, there was only one solar eclipse visible from Jerusalem that occurred during Pilate's tenure. That one occurred in November 29 AD, missing Passover by several months. It is inconsistent with a solar eclipse as the cause of the "great darkness." There were several lunar eclipses, including one on April 3, 33 AD that was conincident with Passover celebrations. The biblical descripiton of the "great darkness" resembles descriptions of eclipses from other ancient sources.

The most-likely explanation: confusion in the minds of the authors who were writing somewhere between months and centuries after-the-fact and were not familiar with celestial phenomena.

No evidence of the supernatural here - no evidence of a miracle, either.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, there was only one solar eclipse visible from Jerusalem that occurred during Pilate's tenure. That one occurred in November 29 AD, missing Passover by several months. It is inconsistent with a solar eclipse as the cause of the "great darkness." There were several lunar eclipses, including one on April 3, 33 AD that was conincident with Passover celebrations. The biblical descripiton of the "great darkness" resembles descriptions of eclipses from other ancient sources.

The most-likely explanation: confusion in the minds of the authors who were writing somewhere between months and centuries after-the-fact and were not familiar with celestial phenomena.

No evidence of the supernatural here - no evidence of a miracle, either.

Doug

Here is a portion of a much longer article that can be found at http://www.metrum.org/gosen/portenjesus.htm of anyone is interested

The portents at Jesus’ death have created nothing but embarrassment for modern interpreters. Church fathers found themselves compelled to claim that the universal darkness had been observed by pagans, too. Tertullian, trying to counter pagan criticism, dismisses the contention of some that it may have been the case of an eclipse and asserts: and yet you [pagans] have available this world occur­rence in your secret records.[1]

If a record had existed it would have been care­fully quoted by Christian writers; if this record had existed Tertullian would not have appealed to the authority of secrets (arcana) to which his pagan readers had no access.

Modern Roman Catholic interpreters usually grant that the portents attending Jesus’ death are pious legends. Protestant interpreters, even when of liberal inclination, for the most part shrink from offering such a forthright solution of the problem. But, even if it is granted that the portents are the expression of the intense feelings of the early followers of Jesus, there remains the difficulty that they do not correspond to Jewish traditions and Jewish conceptions.

The list of portents that took place at Jesus’ death closely resembles that which Seneca employed in his Hercules on Oeta to mark the death of Hercules, and was a stan­dard one in classical literature. Vergil in his Georgics (I 466-488) lists the portents that accompanied Caesar’s murder: first is the darkening of the sun, plun­ging the world into night; next, sea and land are in turmoil, with Mt. Etna erupting and the Alps shaking;

rivers halt and chasms form in the earth

specters appear; and finally,

in temples the ivory weeps in sorrow and bronzes sweat.

fullywired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dude might be serious, and discussing it and trying to understand WHY he is serious instead of immediately disagreeing and reacting with sciencism reactions, might get you furthur, unless you just like p***ing people off by insulting the time they spent referencing and typing stuff you don't agree with. It is a discussion forum, and thats what we do here.

Th the OP nice ORiginal post. hopefully I will have something better to offer conversation wise when I finshe the thread.

When it is painfully clear from the OP's first few sentences that he doesn't have the slightest grasp of the scientific method, or astronomy, it is then pretty unlikely that anymore of his argument would have any validity. If you want to entertain junk science, and give it credence then by all means go ahead but don't be surprised when people dismiss it at what it is. With the lack of knowledge the OP has on science it would be impossible to get him to understand his errors in one thread, and he likely doesn't want to understand anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a record had existed it would have been care­fully quoted by Christian writers; if this record had existed Tertullian would not have appealed to the authority of secrets (arcana) to which his pagan readers had no access.

But a pagan record does exist. According to the Ulster Cycle, King Connor Mor was out cutting wood when a great darkness came over the earth. He asked his druid what that might portend and the druid replied that Jesus Christ had been crucified. Thereupon Connor became so distraught that he died.

Of course, there are those who will note that Connor led his army against Julius Caesar about 85 years earlier and so couldn't have been alive when Jesus died, but what do they know?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.