[b-hebrew] Assumptions about ANE ages that just don't work.

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 08:43:15 EDT 2007


Yitzhak:

Normally I don't answer your posts, because I don't want to get into
arguments with you.

On 10/22/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Yigal:
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Yigal Levin <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> > > One of the basic premises of any science, including the study of history and
> > > of linguistics, is that the laws of nature, and the rules that govern human
> > > behavior, were always what as the are now.
> >
> > The basic tenet of modern science is that it is based on observation.
> > Furthermore, for that observation to be scientifically valid, it has
> > to be repeatable. Then patterns are sought in collections of
> > observations, those patterns are tested by making more observations,
> > which scientists call making hypotheses, testing them and refining
> > them to theories. (Source: Simpson, George Gaylord and William S Beck
> > "Life: an introduction to Biology" 1965 as well as many other science
> > textbooks of that era.) In modern science, observation takes
> > precedence over theory.
>
> > Because modern science is limited to what can be observed, either
> > directly or indirectly, it cannot study what cannot be observed. One
> > example of such is the past, which, though once observable, no long
> > is.
>
> It is problematic to take a quote from a biology book as to what science is.
> Biology and other natural sciences are different than history and literature.
> This does not mean that history is not a science or that there are no
> scientific ways to study literature, including ancient literature.  Your
> representation of postmodern vs. modern philosophies does not appear to
> be what scientists generally use to qualify postmodern and modern
> philosophies.  Furthermore, since you have that book, what does that book
> say about ancient life, such as dinosaurs?  Does it suggest ancient life
> cannot be studied?
>
> Yitzhak Sapir

The reasons I like to cite this book are the following:

1) of the many textbooks that I checked at that time, this one gave
the most detailed definition of what is science, its method and how to
tell what is scientific verses what is not, including examples of each
and why according to definition the theories are or are not
scientific, (a definition that is a few pages in length)

2) the authors, especially George Gaylord Simpson, are well known,
therefore the book was widely printed and still regularly appears on
Amazon if not also in your local library, making it readily available
to others,

3) I have made a note of the book so I can cite it by authors and title, and

4) it gives one of the strongest arguments I have seen why evolution
is not a scientific theory with an emphasis on "scientific", never was
and never can be. Because the presentation of scientific method is so
clear that science has to be on the basis of observation, and the
definition of evolution is so clearly defined in such a way that it
could not have been observed, the logic is clear, but the authors
illogical. I use this as a perfect example of Romans 1:22.

I have mentioned the fourth reason before on this list, as well as
alluding to the previous ones.

There is a fifth reason: because the authors were such well known
proselytizers for their faith, using their textbooks as one of their
tools, citing the other reasons above make for a good polemic against
their and their disciples' proselytism.

There are also many historic examples in literature and art that
contradict that faith.

While the specific tools of biology are different from those for
literature and linguistics, a scientific study of literature and
linguistics will still be limited to what can be observed. In the case
of ancient writings, limited to the extant documents that we can
observe. Linguistic theories that cannot be observed, such as the
theory that chet was originally two letters that were merged in
Biblical Hebrew, has neither historical nor scientific evidence to
back it up because it is not based on observation.

As I said at the beginning of this response, I usually try to avoid
answering you directly, because of your record of twisting my words
into what I did not say. If you start doing that again, I will not
lower myself to respond.

Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list