Aristotle

[AV1611VET]

But you cannot reconstruct the past with words and concepts meaning something different now as to what they meant then.

Obviously, I'm having a hard time doing it with you guys as well.

You're more interested in hearing yourselves talk than answering my questions.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, but if I hold a molecule of air in my hand, can you prove that I didn't create it ex nihilo?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Obviously, I'm having a hard time doing it with you guys as well.

You're more interested in hearing yourselves talk than answering my questions.

Your question has been answered. What else do you want?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question has been answered.

No, it hasn't --- 13.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Your question has been answered.

Now, do you have a point?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No.

In cased you missed it AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question has been answered.

QV please: 24.

 

[Alunyel]

I've got a question.

What the smeg does the mass of air have to do with creationism or evolution?

 

[Thistlethorn]

No, it hasn't --- 13.

This isn't 20 questions. Just because you're asking so nicely, I'll answer it.

Just he --- or were his peers mistaken also, and he is the scapegoat?

They were all mistaken. They based their conclusion on beliefs rather than empirical evidence.

Are we done here now?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Please QV post #1, then post #4.

What more do you want AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

They were all mistaken. They based their conclusion on beliefs rather than empirical evidence.

Are we done here now?

Not quite.

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.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Not quite.

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.)

Yes.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Not quite.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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.

See above.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.See above.

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.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

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!

 

[Alunyel]

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.

 

[Split Rock]

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."

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

I'm trying desperately to keep this thread focused off of the word 'today', and putting the emphasis on 'then'.

I know what you guys are trying to do, and I'm too vigilant to fall for it.

I don't even want to see the word 'today' in this thread; but hey, that won't stop you guys, will it?

 

[Alunyel]

I'm trying desperately to keep this thread focused off of the word 'today', and putting the emphasis on 'then'.

I know what you guys are trying to do, and I'm too vigilant to fall for it.

I don't even want to see the word 'today' in this thread; but hey, that won't stop you guys, will it?

More attempts at deception from Av.

YOU WERE USING TODAY'S DEFINITION OF SCIENCE IN RELATION TO A QUESTION ABOUT ANCIENT GREECE.