Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 18 2011,05:07) | | Quote (didymos @ Mar. 16 2011,15:25) | | Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 16 2011,13:06) | | I think they didn't think this through before declaring a win for the home team. |
The essence of IDC right there. |
Further example: | Quote | | Ratzsch gives the example of two physicists doing research sometime a bit before 1900 or so. One says “You know, I think atoms are mutable…we can split them apart or squash them together”. The other says, “yeah, right…nice speculation, but you have no evidence to back that up.” And in one very real sense, pre 1900 or so, the second physicist would have been correct, because at that time no one knew of any relevant back ground principles or data that would allow a connection between the idea of the mutability of atoms and any observations that had been made. But, in another sense, there was such evidence….bright shining evidence that rose every morning and set every night. If not for the mutability of atoms, there would be no sunshine. As Ratzsch points out, in this scenario, at that time no one knew of the proper back ground principles that would justify the hypothesis of the mutability of atoms with an observation, sunshine. But the evidence was there just the same, and every person on the planet could observe it. Once later discoveries were made, then it was quite plausible to connect the observation with the hypothesis. |
Except that in 1862 Lord Kelvin (a creationist) wrote On the Age of the Sun’s Heat
where he maintains that the sun's heat is generated by gravitational collapse of the Sun and that this implies a very short maximum lifetime, probably no more than 100 million years and certainly less than 500 million years for our sun. Geologists knew from massive amounts of evidence that the earth (and therefore the Sun) was much much older than that, but to Kelvin the "bright shining evidence that rose every morning and set every night" was evidence of gravitational contraction, not the mutability of atoms. Kelvin made a similar mistake on the age of the earth. |
The great age of the Earth and Sun is also a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. Hence, either evolution *and* geology were wrong, or Kelvin's assumption that the Sun's radiant energy and the Earth's residual energy were due to gravitational collapse was wrong. With the discovery of atomic radiation, it was shown that Kelvin's assumption was wrong.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
