Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Because they didn't have technology, or rather what we have today. It was still science asfaras science was in those days. Who is to say that it won't change again. It was still considered a theory then and it was debunked. That was the question that Bruce asked. I know that things have changed and that it isn't correct. I am not questioning that. I am simply making the point that things change as time goes on. What is considered truth today, may not be true in years to come. It wasn't science because they didn't use the scientific method. It was a belief that was debunked using simple observation of planets, using, as far as I'm aware, the naked eye, this was later confirmed by Galileo, Kepler, and Newton as physics began. It was only considered truth, midnight, because people didn't know any better to question, because they didn't use science. Science is always about questioning and falsifying. That method wasn't around back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Science is always about questioning and falsifying So why is it such a big deal that I question? Isn't that the way we learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 So why is it such a big deal that I question? Isn't that the way we learn? Where have I said it was a big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/re...copernican.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I can't get the link. It keeps telling me that the page has expired. Is it me or my computer? Wasn't this thread started because those of us who believe that science has changed in the past and it will continue to change and what we percieve to be true today just may not be true tomorrow? That nothing in science is absolute and definante(sp)? Or am I taking this entire discussion wrong? Again, it is me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I do have a question that my husband brought up while watching the Science channel the other night. If the planets were formed by the gathering of matter, then why is there an asteroid belt that is not developing more planets? He loves science and we both understand that by the facts, ideas are formed as to the "how". When we watched the show on planets the narrator repeated several times throughout the show, "scientist think, no one knows, no one is sure, scientists believe" etc. when it came to the "how". KWIM? For instance, one female scientist made a model years ago of "how" she thought the moon was formed based on the FACTS that came from visiting the moon and the tests that were done. Still though, the narrator specified "thinks and no one is sure, but....it is believed that the moon was a planet that collided with earth, and after billions of years the particles gathered together to form our moon" However, on a separate show on the same network, this collision was not specified as not being just a thought, but more a "fact". Is this theory a fact or don't they really know for sure? Evolution can be proven, we see changes, BUT is the how it began theory a "fact" or something that they don't know? One website or book states that it is a belief, whereas another site or book presents this as an absolute. I know that this is where my confusion comes in. The how is never really a fact. Facts are pieces of evidence...piece them together to get the how and that's a theory...get more facts and that might change slightly. Planetary formation isn't one of the most well-known theories...I don't think we've ever observed a planet being formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I can't get the link. It keeps telling me that the page has expired. Is it me or my computer?Wasn't this thread started because those of us who believe that science has changed in the past and it will continue to change and what we percieve to be true today just may not be true tomorrow? That nothing in science is absolute and definante(sp)? Or am I taking this entire discussion wrong? Again, it is me? Science has changed, but not to the level that you think it has, that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 If the hidden varible in the EPR paradox is found, wouldn't that change things in a big way? Wouldn't that turn science around on it's ear? I know that I question things and I question hard. If all the pieces of the puzzle don't fit or are missing, then it is incomplete and has the possibility to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 1...you are worrying to much! , chill. Asimov nor anyone else is giving you a hard time, okay? I'm asking too. 2. It is your computer because the link came up fine for me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know he is not. I know I would be getting very fustrated if I kept trying to teach someone something and they just don't seem to get it. I would start to think if they are just playing games with me. OK let me try it in AOL instead of RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 If the hidden varible in the EPR paradox is found, wouldn't that change things in a big way? Wouldn't that turn science around on it's ear? I know that I question things and I question hard. If all the pieces of the puzzle don't fit or are missing, then it is incomplete and has the possibility to change. Why would it change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Okay, so then basically, (first thanks Asimov, you are very helpful) like I said, my husband and I understand the fact part. So Evolution is a Theory, based on facts, and the theory of "how" it came to be can change without being considered a lie,when more facts enter into play? It's not really facts of evolution that is in question but rather the "theory" of "how" said evolution was started? Would that be a correct assessment? Yes, that would be a correct assessment from what I've seen of this entire thing. Creationism, in its infinite ignorance, only recognizes certain facts that fit their worldview and tend to handwave others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I still can't get the page he linked to but I can get the website. Where in the site do I look, I will do it the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Why would it change? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wouldn't it contradict Newton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 just go to wikipedia.org and type in copernicus...it'll probably have some info there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Wouldn't it contradict Newton? How would it do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Hooray! Thank you so very much, that helps tremendously! After seeing all the Hovind creation videos and going to Dinosaur Adventureland several times, I really see now that he does not know wth, he is talking about. He really slams theory of evolution but then presents his theories without a blink of an eye. He thinks that there was some kind of ice canopy above the earth, that caused rain for the first time...what a bonehead! He doesn't slam evolution though...he just creates this straw-man that attacks pretty much EVERY science in the field (except for genetics...for some unknown reason...), and then he presents something that on the surface fits some of the facts, but not when you look at the whole thing in a more objective manner....kinda like with the geocentric model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Hooray! Thank you so very much, that helps tremendously! After seeing all the Hovind creation videos and going to Dinosaur Adventureland several times, I really see now that he does not know wth, he is talking about. He really slams theory of evolution but then presents his theories without a blink of an eye. He thinks that there was some kind of ice canopy above the earth, that caused rain for the first time...what a bonehead! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is because that is what the bible teaches. It teaches that there was a... here I'll just show you the passage: Gen 2:4 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. It is bs I know, but it is what they are taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 How would it do that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The paradox of EPR is the following contradiction: for our coupled systems, we can measure observable A of system I (for example, photon 1 has spin up along the x-axis; photon 2 must therefore have x-spin down), and observable B of system II (for example, photon 2 has spin down along the y-axis; therefore the y-spin of photon 1 must be up), thereby revealing both observables for both systems, contrary to QM. Ok, what am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 The paradox of EPR is the following contradiction: for our coupled systems, we can measure observable A of system I (for example, photon 1 has spin up along the x-axis; photon 2 must therefore have x-spin down), and observable B of system II (for example, photon 2 has spin down along the y-axis; therefore the y-spin of photon 1 must be up), thereby revealing both observables for both systems, contrary to QM.Ok, what am I missing? Do you understand what is being said there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Yes I do, and I posted the wrong quote. The entire point of bringing up the EPR is that there are "forces" that can not yet be explained by modern science, YET. Two cells in separate petrie dishes moving identical to each other. Have they ever explained why in college dorms women's cycle will all coincide(sp) with each other where they all start the same time? I know that this is a simple anology, but I think that it kind of fits. I understand that we change and our cells change. But alot of it can be explained by simpicity. Take too many antibiotics when not needed and the bacteria will become immune to it. Be obsessive about germs and you don't give your body a change to build up immunity. Again, I know that this is simple and that evolution is not as simple or that my timetable is so very off as in my examples. The question remains, especially when it comes to millions of years past. It is fine now to try and explain why and how, it doesn't stop me from wondering and believing that there are missing pieces of the puzzle, and we do not know how those pieces fit or whether or not they are going to shake things up. But that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I have seen various statements by Christians and others that, to paraphrase; "Scienctific theories that were considered laws have been proven wrong in the past". I would request that someone substantiate this claim. Please give examples to this effect. Further discussion to be forthcoming. 96833[/snapback] I presume they were probably talking about Newtons second law of motion. Has it been proved wrong? Well yes and no. Yes if you strictly take Newtons mathematical model for momentum. No if you take Einsteins. It is probably better to say Einstein made an amendment to Newton's law. Though the wording of the law has not changed just the equations. Link Other than that I know of no laws that have been proved or nearly proved wrong. Sorry if someone has mentioned this before I didn't read the whole thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Other than that I know of no laws that have been proved or nearly proved wrong. Next up will presumably be the law of biogenesis. Pasteur jumped the gun by formulating it after his experiments that refuted spontaneous generation. In a pedantic sense it still holds, but since it speaks to a limited range of phenomena - the development of fully-formed life from non-living matter - modern abiogenesis is not challenged by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 A little off topic, but FYI.. We have an incomplete theory(s) to exlpain gravity, but do not know really how it works. ...that isn't exactly true and also, something even more important to help the anti-Christian is the fact that the second law of thermodynamics was proven incorrect at least 33 years ago. But you’re not going to find much on that. It has social purpose in being continued. "Maxwell's Demon" theory was logical and rational evidence that the law was invalid, but "Durbin's Angel" answered Maxwell's theoretical demon with a physically realistic design. You won't find anything on that topic as with many proofs that remain hidden for social reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 A little off topic, but FYI.. We have an incomplete theory(s) to exlpain gravity, but do not know really how it works. ...that isn't exactly true and also, something even more important to help the anti-Christian is the fact that the second law of thermodynamics was proven incorrect at least 33 years ago. But you’re not going to find much on that. It has social purpose in being continued. "Maxwell's Demon" theory was logical and rational evidence that the law was invalid, but "Durbin's Angel" answered Maxwell's theoretical demon with a physically realistic design. You won't find anything on that topic as with many proofs that remain hidden for social reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 ...that isn't exactly true Erm, yes it is. Unless you were invited to the marriage of GR and QM? and also, something even more important to help the anti-Christian is the fact that the second law of thermodynamics was proven incorrect at least 33 years ago. But you’re not going to find much on that. Huh? Do you mean that isolated, negative-energy systems have been shown to decrease entropy? It has social purpose in being continued. Is that a euphemism for 'conspiracy'? "Maxwell's Demon" theory was logical and rational evidence that the law was invalid, but "Durbin's Angel" answered Maxwell's theoretical demon with a physically realistic design. Maxwell's Demon was also refuted by Szilard and, much later, Bennett. You won't find anything on that topic as with many proofs that remain hidden for social reasons. Something you can share with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts