No. Where did you ever get a silly idea like that?
Here is a definition of "truth" from a CalTech website:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.Science is concerned with explanations. That is where theories come in:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."Don’t you know, for instance, that the science of archeology has proven over and over and over again that the facts in the Bible given about historical incidents / places / names have been PROVEN to be accurate???Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
So do most works of historical fiction. Means nothing.
If the Bible presents TRUTH about history, for instance, which it does —— that history includes the history of creation of life.
See above.
For instance, it includes the cataclysmic FLOOD to which the millions of fossils of ocean animals in the middle of desserts and on the tops of mountains and thousands of miles “inland” testify as accurate. Does that not even draw you to find out more of what is given in the TRUTHS revealed in the Bible - and matching up with the evidence?
The early geologists were creationists seeking to prove the global flood. The last major holdout gave up in 1831. Science since that time has conclusively shown that there was no global flood at the appointed time, ca. 4,350 years ago.
I have evidence from my own work as an archaeologist that there was no major flood 4,350 years ago in the area in which I work.
Perhaps you should stick to belief and leave science to scientists (and archaeology to archaeologists, eh?).
Coyoteman,
You’re an archaeologist? Thoroughly cool!~
There is much to be said about this topic: does science search for truth. No need to flippantly dismiss the topic.
Science Magazine - many articles that touch on this subject - just start reading ...http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=truth&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go
(Of course, you are correct, in that pseudo science can claim anything to be “truth” when it is only speculation....as we see in “An Inconvenient Truth” by Algore, for instance.....is, indeed, not about TRUTH but about a quest for power using scientific theory to justify the removal of freedom from many)....
Yet, the “truth” that germs can cause disease keeps being thrown out as not having been written about in the Bible...so how can the Bible be true??? It is not TRUE that germs can cause disease?
Regarding the Noahic flood - of course there are tales of a flood in the ancient civilizations - reflecting the FACT that there was, indeed, a worldwide cataclysmic flood.
Where you are doing your work may not YET show evidence of a flood....no salt water creature fossils there..... yet?
Perhaps one could just say....keep digging.