Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Are you telling me that Aristotle didn't provide one bit of empirical evidence to back his discovery?
(Or whomever discovered it --- 'no one', according to you.)
I honestly don't know, AV. He might have provided some evidence, such as "well, the air doesn't really feel like it weighs anything, does it?" He could also have looked at the air and gone "Hmmm... I can't really see the air, so it probably has no structure at all". However, he did not have access to the laboratory facilities required to conduct accurate experiments with air.
To connect this with your original question, Aristotle didn't discover that air has no mass. He postulated it, based on logical thinking but without the necessary knowledge of physics or chemistry.
I honestly don't know, AV. He might have provided some evidence, such as "well, the air doesn't really feel like it weighs anything, does it?" He could also have looked at the air and gone "Hmmm... I can't really see the air, so it probably has no structure at all". However, he did not have access to the laboratory facilities required to conduct accurate experiments with air.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention that he may have been taught that by his predecessors.
You claim he didn't discover this [at-the-time] scientific fact, yet you didn't give credit to his predecessors.
I have a feeling he was indeed made a scapegoat to shift the focus off of the fact that scientific errors can, and are, perpetuated.
Originally Posted by Thistlethorn
To connect this with your original question, Aristotle didn't discover that air has no mass. He postulated it, based on logical thinking but without the necessary knowledge of physics or chemistry.
I am finding that this kind of rigid, or fixed thinking, is a peculiar trait among creationists and fundamentalists. They are trained to take as literal an ancient book that is 'unchanging.' They construct their defense of creationism on scientific assumptions that have long been overturned or corrected. Once they get the flock to believe that science is 'wrong,' then they're clear to show them how creationism is right. False dichotomy. Case in point. Lee Strobel, in his attempt to debunk evolution, states how the Miller/Urey experiment assumed what we know now to be inccorect starting conditions, ergo science and evolution is wrong. What he doesn't tell the flock, is that a similar experiment was run with updated enviromental conditions, and the the results were even better! One of the four nucleotide bases was part of the results! Either Strobel knew this and lied, or he doesn't take time to search the www for updated information.
When confronted with changing informaiton, it doesn't compute. 404 error!
No, science then and now works very different. The scientific method as its known today did not exist back then so you cannot make the two equivalent.
'Sactly.
Back then, things were decided through discussion. There was no testing, no predicting, no logical conclusions drawn from the results of the testing, no peer reviewed papers published.
"Science" back then was more philosophy than science.
Now, that still doesn't answer my question. What does Aristotle, or the mass of air have to do with either creationism or evolution?
If you were asking as a general question, because you were genuinely interested and wanted to know the answer, you'd look it up on Google, and do some research into it. If however, your question had a hidden (Albeit poorly) agenda, to try and discredit science and ultimately evolution, then you'd post it in the Evolution and Creation Sciences board.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention that he may have been taught that by his predecessors.
You claim he didn't discover this [at-the-time] scientific fact, yet you didn't give credit to his predecessors.
I have a feeling he was indeed made a scapegoat to shift the focus off of the fact that scientific errors can, and are, perpetuated.
You seem to be the one making him into a "scapegoat." And no, he was not what we would consider a "scientist" today, therefore you cannot use him as an example of "scientific errors."
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
Linear Mode
