Reef,
its a good job columbus didnt listen to you a few hundred years ago isnt it with all that evidence that the world is flat i mean where would be today.
It was known that the world was spherical in Columbus' day. So he
would have found the Americas if he'd listened to me. The Greeks & Egyptians knew the earth was curved, too.
If anything has been proven throughout history...its that 9 times out of 10 theories are very very wrong.
Not good enough. A VAST body of evidence requires an equally VAST body of evidence to overturn it. Most of the theories you are talking about are barely past the hypothesis stage. Once a theory starts seeing it's predictions born out they are almost never overturned by a paradigm shift. Why? The very thing I've been trying fruitlessly to communicate to you. A LARGE body of corroborative evidence needs to be explained away in a better fashion than the original theory. Most theories, nay, ALL of them undergo revision, but that doesn't make them very, very wrong, does it?
Take the Greenland ice cores, for example. Two miles thick with distict bi-banding all the way to the bottom. The summer layers are frosty & airy, the winter more homogenous ice. Summer snow contains more acid reducing it's conductivity relative to winter snow. Summer snow contains more hydrogen peroxide than winter snow. Every 11 years more Beryllium 10 is produced in the upper atmosphere due to the sunspot cycle. Summer & winter bands possess different oxygen isotope ratios due to different evaporative properties.
All of the above phenomenon (bar the first) can be traced all the way to the bottom of the ice sheet, that is winter-summer-winter-summer etc. Major eruptions like vesuvius leave their marks where they are supposed to. The leaded fuel era is represented. The predicted changes are exactly where they are supposed to be vis-a-vis the ice ages as dated by other methods, including the correct pollen & dust levels, a near perfect correlation. There are 110,000 banded couplets representing 110,000 years. Now you need to explain via legitimate logical inference based upon empirical observation as to why banded couplets occur in the Greenland ice sheet (nay, ALL ice sheets) that possess the above phenomena in such a way that denies the link to annual deposition. If you can't do it then your "9/10th of theories are very, very wrong" baloney isn't holding much water, is it?
This is what a robust, evidentially well supported theory looks like. It's not so easy to overturn a paradigm with no evidence, is it? A bare assertion that it must be wrong because 9 out of 10 were previously (& I dispute the number & level of "wrongness", but nevermind) is meaningless, evidenceless, wishful thinking with no logical imperative or power.
This is a SINGLE line of evidence showing the earth to be at least 110,000 years old.
Newton was gospel before Einstein...
Still is....
now evidence is finally being compilled against Einsteins theories.
Such as? I bet you have no paradigm shifting evidence
at all as to his theories that were accepted 10 years ago but are now allegedly falsified.
We shud never stop asking the question of whether what we take to be true is wrong... otherwise my dear fellow you'd still wake up hoping that u dont fall of the end of the earth one day!
Incidentally, have you ever left you country of birth with the fear that your plane/boat was going to fall off the end of the earth? No? Makes you look a bit hypocritical, no? Surely you are giving the spherical earth hypothesis a bit to much credibility? I mean, a logical corollary of your argument thus far is that we should seriously consider a flat earth hypothesis despite the evidence to the contrary? May I respectfully suggest that you think twice before you get on a ship or plane again?
Otherwise, I quite agree, it's how science works. But make NO mistake, a highly supported theory is going nowhere without a mountain of contradictory evidence, it's the newer theories that get the major revisions, the older ones are simply so well supported that a paradigm shift is very, very unlikely. How likely do you think a return to a flat earth paradigm is?
Does the word "tentativity" mean anything to you?
The reason we accept old age theories of the earth/universe is because they are evidentially robust, just like the spherical earth hypothesis. The reason we reject young earth hypotheses is because they have no supporting evidence of their own, & are in fact contradicted by evidence, just like the flat earth hypotheses.
I doubt you've ever worried about falling off the edge of the earth, why dispute the age of the earth/universe?
Mark
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
™ Version 4.2
