Replies

Professor Says History’s Best Known and Most Debated Star Proven

Proved? Where's the proof? Sounds more like a weak correlation than any kind of a scientific "proof."

(And, by the way, science does not "prove" things -- it either supports hypotheses and theories, or it disproves them. See my FR homepage for some definitions of scientific terms.)

It looks like this fellow is doing apologetics rather than science.

And the opposite of “dis-prove” is...? PROVE.

And the synonym for “support” is? PROVE.

You’re just playing word games. Of course science can prove hypotheses.

I hypothesize that if I let go of a brick on top of the building, that it will fall to the ground. I do my experiment and find that indeed the brick falls to the ground. My hypothesis is proven correct.

Other hypotheses that are proven: that animals deprived of oxygen will die. That you can control the flow of electrons from one point to another via a conducting material. That if you heat regular book paper to 451 degrees fahrenheit, it will start to burn.

You’re just trying to play semantics here.

It sounds like the Professor was a bit out of his field according to this story. Maybe he was misquoted.
Plus, perhaps he used the word “proof” differently than you would. Maybe he uses it more in the sense of logic or truth.
Hard science is great, but it is limited even by its own definition.
That is where theology and philosophy come in. For example: what is the meaning of life and is there a God are not questions that science can answer.
Also, fragmented as this was, I would have a hard time believing the ancients that had no light pollution were not intimately familiar with the night sky and its occupants. Jupiter would be no more unusual than the moon. It is only in modern times we forget what the universe looks like.
I live outside of town and enjoy marking the seasons by the change of constellations. I’m sure the ancients did too.

"Proved? Where's the proof? Sounds more like a weak correlation than any kind of a scientific "proof."

(And, by the way, science does not "prove" things -- it either supports hypotheses and theories, or it disproves them. See my FR homepage for some definitions of scientific terms.)

It looks like this fellow is doing apologetics rather than science."

Jumped on this rather fast, didn't you? If Jupiter was truly the bright star in the sky, (according to astrology, which was the established 'science' at the time) it would have given a favorable portent depending on other aspects. Combine the journey of astrologers to Jerusalem, and tales of the approach of Messiah, along with references to City of David, you might have a historical basis. The bit about hovering over the city might be embellishment.

Keep in mind that consulting stars was a regular occurence in that time. Kingdoms rose and fell (reference Cortez and the Aztecs) based on astonomical phenomena.

Don't let your obsession with 'fundies' get the best of you.

"It looks like this fellow is doing apologetics rather than science."

This time you're almost right. He actually was doing neither. To attempt to relate a spiritual event or phenominon to a material object is foolishness.