Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KevinT" data-source="post: 77647743" data-attributes="member: 434988"><p>I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.</p><p></p><p>But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@SeethePattern" target="_blank">SeeThePattern</a>, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). <a href="https://youtu.be/9HyZ1Ns_yKA?si=kk6WWpZ1ouWpzEP7" target="_blank">Here</a> is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And <a href="https://youtu.be/uojPXrbjkWw?si=HVGgaazJ2NcTqs6i" target="_blank">here</a> is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations. </p><p></p><p>And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.</p><p></p><p>This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.</p><p></p><p>As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bohr-vs-einstein-is-the-moon-there-when-we-are-not-looking.856587/" target="_blank">here</a>. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory. </p><p></p><p>All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble. </p><p></p><p>Best wishes,</p><p>Kevin</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KevinT, post: 77647743, member: 434988"] I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies. But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, [URL='https://www.youtube.com/@SeethePattern']SeeThePattern[/URL], that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). [URL='https://youtu.be/9HyZ1Ns_yKA?si=kk6WWpZ1ouWpzEP7']Here[/URL] is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And [URL='https://youtu.be/uojPXrbjkWw?si=HVGgaazJ2NcTqs6i']here[/URL] is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations. And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong. This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly. As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bohr-vs-einstein-is-the-moon-there-when-we-are-not-looking.856587/']here[/URL]. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory. All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble. Best wishes, Kevin [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth
Top
Bottom