By request: "Mother Lode" of Fossils Discovered in Canada

[Estrid]

Have you noticed some revisions of the Big Bang Theory since Hubble has been operating?


You're reactionary. I didn't say revision was wrong necessarily.
My point is was scientific opinion is a shifting and movng target.

Science and our future?
How to use AI to more and more simulate human productivity of every imaginable kind.
How to make a better weapon probably most of our funds will go to.
How to militarize outer space faster than our enemies.
How to simulate better sexual indulgence - robotically for $$$$
How to make brain and computer enteraction for $$$$
How to conduct instantaneous total surveillance on the populace.
Looking desperately for evidence that evolution kicked off somewhere else also in the universe.
How to spread misinformation and information around the world more effectively.
Medical improvements is certainly the purview of many able innovators.

Mostly though, I think advanced countries will sink their resources and mind power into
how to make a better weapon to defeat the other country.

I cannot tell if you mean reactionary as an adjective
or verb but in either event it's an odd and wholly
inapplicable to me. Some other word?

Your complaint about science, and reference to it as a target strongly suggests that revision / addition is a
fault, or weakness in science.
It is in practice a major component in its strength and success.

"Reactionary' referes to conservatism, unwillingness to
accommodate change.

One could as well say it's a fault in automobile design.

I asked for an example of a (significant) theory that has
been kicked out, disproved.

"Big bang" has new information and details added.
That is hardly a problem. It certainly has not been disproved.

Lots of minor theories ( especially in medicine) prove
to be false. Ideas that made sense based on
available info in every aspect of human life can turn out to be false. Happens every day.

No major theory has been disproved since about the time
science was an infant, and it was found that the earth moves about the sun instead of vice versa.

I said we ( you and i ) don't have a discussion ahead of us
because I see in you an attitude / stockpile of
misinformation that I've not it in me correct.

Example is the "desperately searching". There's no
such "search" and certainly no " desperation".

There's so many layers of wrong, upside down and backwards in just those two words!

Maybe in a different post. If you show signs you
are not yourself reactionary about your own misconceptions.

A final thought here has to with the contrasting nature
of science and religion.

I've been around scientists all my life. To a man, or woman
they are curious people who want to learn and understand
things.
Among them are Buddhists, Deists, Christians,Taoist.
And of course, atheists.

A Chridtian friend ( organic chemist) expressed her
faith to me something like this- " I believe in God. I believe
we have this incredible gift, life. I believe God wants for
us to make the most of it, show appreciation, be the best
we can be. I try to live that way."

As an educated person she knows there,was no,flood.
That the earth is immensely old.
That we evolved from very humble ancestors

That the Bible says otherwise has nothing to
do with the reality of god or the correctress of science.

So that's religious thinking on one level.

On a different and rather, to my mind unfortunate level
there's the belief that old timers heard from God
about certain physical and other aspects of reality-
And once a person has chosen to believe that
flying an airplane into wtc is a holy thing, or that
there really was a world world wide flood, one is
committed, no matter what.

There's ten thousand ways to disprove world wide flood.

There's a school of religious thought that it is a highest
virtue to deny it, and hold fast to a chosen belief
no matter what.

Sure, learning involves altering understanding.
Giving up old ideas. Like " sun go around earth".
Being intellectually honest, and humble about
admitting they were wrong.


That's no weakness.


The weakness is in those who mistake their
reactionary nature for faith in God.

 

[oikonomia]

I cannot tell if you mean reactionary as an adjective
or verb but in either event it's an odd and wholly
inapplicable to me. Some other word?

I think you presumed that I was generally anti-sience.

Your complaint about science, and reference to it as a target strongly suggests that revision / addition is a
fault, or weakness in science.
It is in practice a major component in its strength and success.

"Reactionary' referes to conservatism, unwillingness to
accommodate change.

I am "militant middle of the road" - neither too conserevative not too progressive.
I think the recent award given a highschool student for inventing a hand soap
that treats skin cancer was very good. I think he was inspired by living in one of the hot African countries
where he saw people working in the sunlight all day to the detriment of their skin.

I am as eager to hear about new science developments as the next guy.
But being a believer in the Bible and in my experience, I know man's sinful nature prevails over
all his good intentions. That is until full salvation from Christ is carried out inevitably.

Sorry, this is a Christian Forum. And I do a little wandering around rooms.
I'll stop posting on this thread if it is too distracting to your OP.

One could as well say it's a fault in automobile design.

I asked for an example of a (significant) theory that has
been kicked out, disproved.

"Kicked out" may be a little too sudden.
As old scientists gradually die, younger scientists gradually replace thier ideas.

In my life time I have seen gradually gain traction:
1.) Re-classifying planets.
2.) Exposure of the hype and failure of origin of life experiments
3.) Changing views about how life started on planet earth - ie. brought in from meteors.
4.) T-Rex maybe being a scavenger rather than a fiersome hunter.
5.) Birds being descendents of dinosaurs.
6.) Killer gas from the onceans causing mass extinctions.
7.) Killer comets causing mass extinctions.
8.) Light speed not being a constant
9.) Life originating at hot springs deep in the ocean.
10.) Gender being purely a self chosen psychological choice.
11.) Various foods which are now suspected of causing cancers.
12.) The proposal of the multiverse with theories of parallel universes.

Now I am not saying any of these have suddenly caused previous ideas to be totally "kicked out".
I am over 70 and have always noticed new arguably plausible theories emerging.

"Big bang" has new information and details added.
That is hardly a problem. It certainly has not been disproved.

I don't know if I used the word "problem."
Seems to me that there are enough puzzles to cause some cosmologist to dust off and re-propose
some sort of steady-state theory again.

I said we ( you and i ) don't have a discussion ahead of us

So then I will stop reading your comments then from this point.
If that's what you prefer.
Pontificate on.

 

[Estrid]

I think you presumed that I was generally anti-sience.

I am "militant middle of the road" - neither too conserevative not too progressive.
I think the recent award given a highschool student for inventing a hand soap
that treats skin cancer was very good. I think he was inspired by living in one of the hot African countries
where he saw people working in the sunlight all day to the detriment of their skin.

I am as eager to hear about new science developments as the next guy.
But being a believer in the Bible and in my experience, I know man's sinful nature prevails over
all his good intentions. That is until full salvation from Christ is carried out inevitably.

Sorry, this is a Christian Forum. And I do a little wandering around rooms.
I'll stop posting on this thread if it is too distracting to your OP.

"Kicked out" may be a little too sudden.
As old scientists gradually die, younger scientists gradually replace thier ideas.

In my life time I have seen gradually gain traction:
1.) Re-classifying planets.
2.) Exposure of the hype and failure of origin of life experiments
3.) Changing views about how life started on planet earth - ie. brought in from meteors.
4.) T-Rex maybe being a scavenger rather than a fiersome hunter.
5.) Birds being descendents of dinosaurs.
6.) Killer gas from the onceans causing mass extinctions.
7.) Killer comets causing mass extinctions.
8.) Light speed not being a constant
9.) Life originating at hot springs deep in the ocean.
10.) Gender being purely a self chosen psychological choice.
11.) Various foods which are now suspected of causing cancers.
12.) The proposal of the multiverse with theories of parallel universes.

Now I am not saying any of these have suddenly caused previous ideas to be totally "kicked out".
I am over 70 and have always noticed new arguably plausible theories emerging.



I don't know if I used the word "problem."
Seems to me that there are enough puzzles to cause some cosmologist to dust off and re-propose
some sort of steady-state theory again.


So then I will stop reading your comments then from this point.
If that's what you prefer.
Pontificate on.

When a theory is disproved its gone. Like that.

That was not a list of theories.
Looks like from ICR, and it would be good to learn whstva theory is.
The theories you did mention
like bird/ dinosaur and one extinction being caused by asteroid ( not comet) are current and solidly evidenced.


You did not need to close your comments with a low insult.