No, the science is rather straightforward: observing facts (say, claims of resurrections), analyzing them (what was the body condition - firm death or kind of so-so, circumstances of death, etc., as well as where is now the resurrected person, etc), then experimenting in order to get reliable, measurable and reproducible data (well, here we may sometimes get negative results), then trying to find (not create!) a logical explanation - you may call it theory (like: if you dead, then because the definition of death is the end of life, there can not be a life after death -these two are mutually exclusive states by definition - you either dead or alive). And now, as is mathematically proven, we can announce newly discovered law of nature: THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH.

Amen.

• except, of course - gwynj - February 2, 2001 - 00:46 UTC
  • No exeptions - it all is just math. - alexander - February 2, 2001 - 21:51 UTC
    • no 'problem' at all - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 01:05 UTC
      • Things not simply "obey math", they result from it. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 01:30 UTC
        • perhaps the recipe for salt - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 16:19 UTC
          • Lack of knowledge is good excuse to believe in God. - alexander - February 3, 2001 - 19:47 UTC
            • If I may clarify - gwynj - February 3, 2001 - 21:07 UTC
            • Monkeys - terry - November 15, 2001 - 11:28 UTC
            • Statistics - xion03 - January 21, 2002 - 23:02 UTC
• Re: Re: Scientific Enterprise - blnelsonusa - February 2, 2001 - 01:59 UTC
  • Re: Re: Re: Scientific Enterprise - alexander - February 2, 2001 - 21:27 UTC