Arch Stanton

So you don't accept scientific theories of gravity either? Because most scientists believe in gravity and therefore interpret evidence to support their beliefs in it, right?


Arch.

Starboy

Hi xBobTheAlienx:

I have to admit, you have a pretty good point here. After perusing the various posts made on this thread by the supporters of evolution, I have to say that they do smack of “Evolution == Fact”. I also have seen some of the textbooks you speak of, and I have to agree with you yet again, they present evolution as fact rather than theory. All this misinformation does nothing to help a thinking individual sort this whole mess out. The blame for this sorry state of affairs can be laid directly at the feet of our educational institutions. The current obsession with competency tests just makes things worse by choosing to concentrate on fact rather than reason and memorization rather than understanding. It also doesn’t help that there has never been anything else like science in the history of mankind. Once you really understand how different it is from any previous philosophy or religion, it is no wonder that people have such a hard time understanding what it is all about.

Adios

Starboy

hezekiah jones

Excellent! I have been looking forward to seeing those articles critiqued from an informed perspective. I can't wait! This should be great.

WWSD

Isn't that what the creationists do?

Scientists OTOH, analyze data and interpret it based on previous theoretical models. If the data doesn't fit the model, the model is A) tweaked, or B) tossed out in favor of a better model. This has happened in the past and I'm sure you could very easily track down several instances of it if you tried. Scientists do not, as you seem to imply, hang on to a theory because they cannot swallow thier pride.

In any case:

Perhaps you'd like to provide a coherant explaination for the observed diversity of species.
Perhaps you'd also like to provide an alternative explaination for the estimated age of the earth, or of the universe.

Caverdude

Hey HRG,
Okay, okay! It seem you may have a deeper insight into such things than me. Let's just forget I said it. I was trying to show another theory that is not obvious to an observer, but is supported by the evidence. ARCH posted a better example (gravity) later in this thread. I KNOW you can't see gravity.

Arch Stanton

Actually general relativity would be a better example. After all any eejit can test out gravity by dropping an object and directly observing it accelerate towards the ground.

But relativistic gravity? How many Joe Sixpacks, i.e. you, me and nearly everyone else, can actually test out general relativity by observing the motion and formation of galaxies and by observing the tiny quirks in Mercury's orbit which don't conform to classical mechanics? Bugger all of us I suspect.

But do we rise up and bitch and moan against astronomers and cosomologists because they make conclusions about the formation and movement of stars, planets, galaxies because we can't directly observe these things happening? Or because the extrapolate big ideas about cosmology which we can't observe on a realtime day to day basis? No we don't. Why not?


Arch.

HRG

Sorry, I was playing the pedant for two posts. But this topic is a favorite of mine: what does "we see X" or "we observe X" really mean ? How much is the reality of tables, chairs and computer monitor a construct of our sensory apparatus ? Is there a difference between "I see an electron" (or lots of electrons) and "I see a table" ? Etc. etc.

I have some answers to those questions. I don't pretend that they are necessarily the answers.

Apologies for hijacking you as a sparring partner!

HRG.

Starboy

I don’t know about any Joe Sixpack, but verification of special relativity is within the grasp of a dedicated amateur. All they need is a telescope and a camera, the know-how and the patience to wait till the next full solar eclipse and they can do it the same way the first verification of SR was performed. As for GR, what took the Hale telescope to do 80 years ago can now be accomplished by an amateur in their back yard with a modest amount of equipment. There are even amateurs that are reproducing the detection of extra solar planets. I would also like to correct another misperception you appear to be promulgating, there is also a long tradition of amateur science in this country, starting with Franklin and going all the way to the present to amateur astronomers that discover supernova, comets and asteroids. It really is possible for anyone who has the desire to experience first hand, the wonders or our universe. And these days amateur cosmology is easier than ever with all the new databases available to anyone on the Internet. The big question I have is why didn’t you know this? I come back to my broken record complaint; our educational system is a failure.

Adios

Starboy

Coragyps

That depends on who you define as "we." The folks at places like Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research do most assuredly call mainstream astronomy another branch of the atheistic evolutionist conspiracy, because those astronomer fellers have the gall to suggest that there were stars that formed before the earth, and not three days after.

HRG

Puzzled. The deflection of light by the gravity of the sun - which is observed during a full eclipse - is a test of GR. It is not a very stringent one, since some other theories of gravity predict the same. AFAICR, the perihelion shift of Mercury is a better test, but the observation that light rays can be bent by gravity has certainly more pizazz!

BTW, I might argue that the first test of SR happened before SR was formulated. It was the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Regards,
HRG.