Question -- not a debate but...about life on earth

[SalixIncendium]

so facts don't change?

A fact is something that has an objective reality and is known to be true. Explain to me how this can change.

 

[HonestJoe]

Facts change, don't they?

Facts don't change, our knowledge and understanding of them certainly can. That is exactly why we have scientific method, to constantly test and expand our understanding of the facts of the universe.

You've still not clarified exactly what point you're actually trying to make with this thread, because you seem to be just bouncing between various reports, random questions and flawed assertions with no clear pattern or purpose.

True, it was a small error. Are you saying that what was taught as fact in school remains true?

Not necessarily. Are you saying that what was taught as fact in church remains true (if it ever was)?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I read that scientists have discovered a black hole then a huge hole in the sun -- so what's to say the sun will definitely burn up and the Earth will not be existing any more? You can debate all you want to, but I am convinced science does not have the "answers" to life. Anyway. MSN

Two giant holes opened up on Sun potentially sending million mph winds to Earth

A giant hole has opened up on the surface of the Sun, which could soon result in solar winds measuring millions of miles per hour hurtling towards Earth.The coronal hole measures 20 times larger than our planet and it’s the second of its type to be detected in the last week. The solar winds will...

www.indy100.com

The thread title suggests a question about life, but your question seems to be about astronomy or alike?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? I was reading an article about Pluto and came across this: Pluto was "spotted in 1930 by astronomer Clyde Tombaugh at Arizona’s Lowell Observatory (named after the otherwise respected American astronomer Percival Lowell who believed that Martians dug the canals found on that planet’s surface)." Again -- lol -- (sorry to laugh) Yet he did spot Pluto. The analysis of Pluto (what is was) changed over the years...regardless of science learning more, the "facts" offered by science can change. Oh well.

What facts changed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am taking about Pluto now. Some things are taught in schools as true but change later due to new observations. So? There is nothing to prove (yes, there's that word again) that the Earth will dissolve. That "hole" shows that things change and yes, God can do what He wants.

You do not seem to know what a fact is. And when it is asked what facts have changed you can never name any.

As to your version of God, why do you believe that God is a liar? You have never been able to answer that question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Facts don't change, our knowledge and understanding of them certainly can. That is exactly why we have scientific method, to constantly test and expand our understanding of the facts of the universe.

You've still not clarified exactly what point you're actually trying to make with this thread, because you seem to be just bouncing between various reports, random questions and flawed assertions with no clear pattern or purpose.T

Not necessarily. Are you saying that what was taught as fact in church remains true (if it ever was)?

OK, let me clarify. Thank you. The point is that scientiists say that the sun will dissolve or something like that in the distant future.

How do you know how it was taught in schools? Scientific discoveries, when they are taught correctly, do have language that means that it would not have been represented as a "fact".

And you are quibbling about very small errors. Why are you not laughing at the enormous errors in the Bible. Some of them a million times greater or more. If that small error makes you laugh the Bible should literally kill you with laughter.

Ah, well ok, maybe I'll be looking for textbooks with statements as if they were true that changed over the years, ok? Going back to Pluto, "for decades it was notable for being our solar system’s smallest and farthest planet. It’s only about half the width of the United States and lies in a far out region of the solar system called the Kuiper Belt, which requires a telescope to see." I learned something here -- didn't know it was about HALF THE WIDTH of the United States. hmm, interesting. I BELIEVE THAT is true, but maybe you'd like to argue with that. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/24/world/pluto-no-longer-planet-space-scn/index.html

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not seem to know what a fact is. And when it is asked what facts have changed you can never name any.

As to your version of God, why do you believe that God is a liar? You have never been able to answer that question.

I wish you well. I see you will argue to the end right now about God and make statements that you do not back up. That's all i can say right now. Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let me clarify. Thank you. The point is that scientiists say that the sun will dissolve or something like that in the distant future.

What s wrong with that? And they do not say that the Sun will dissolve anything. At least I have never heard any of them make the prediction.

Ah, well ok, maybe I'll be looking for textbooks with statements as if they were true that changed over the years, ok? Going back to Pluto, "for decades it was notable for being our solar system’s smallest and farthest planet. It’s only about half the width of the United States and lies in a far out region of the solar system called the Kuiper Belt, which requires a telescope to see." I learned something here -- didn't know it was about HALF THE WIDTH of the United States. hmm, interesting. I BELIEVE THAT is true, but maybe you'd like to argue with that. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/24/world/pluto-no-longer-planet-space-scn/index.html

What makes you think that they cannot measure the size of distant objects. Can you think of a way that they could do so? I can.

At any rate, I asked you what facts had changed and you never answered that question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wish you well. I see you will argue to the end right now about God and make statements that you do not back up. That's all i can say right now. Have a good day.

LMAO! What have I not supported? If you do not understand something you only need to ask. Some of the things that you have to ask are rather astounding. Most of your questions are on the order of "is rain wet?" It would be insulting to think that a person did not know the answer to that sort of question.

 

[YoursTrue]

What s wrong with that? And they do not say that the Sun will dissolve anything. At least I have never heard any of them make the prediction.

What makes you think that they cannot measure the size of distant objects. Can you think of a way that they could do so? I can.

At any rate, I asked you what facts had changed and you never answered that question.

Have a good one. Bye for now...

 

[HonestJoe]

OK, let me clarify. Thank you. The point is that scientiists say that the sun will dissolve or something like that in the distant future.

No they don't. They predict that the Sun will follow the same kind of lifecycle as stars of it's type, based on their understanding of the chemical reactions occurring in a star are observations or other stars at various stages in their lifecycles. There is no claim that any of this is 100% guaranteed to happen, and there are wide variations on a lot of the timing, scale and scope, but I think the core principles seem fairly clear and consistent.

I still don't see what any of that has to do with claim that "science has all the answers to life" (whatever you actually meant by that) or what it has to do with any of the scientific discoveries/observations you highlighted. Maybe you should jut come straight out with the conclusion you want to voice rather than dancing around it as if nobody knows where you're coming from.

 

[YoursTrue]

No they don't. They predict that the Sun will follow the same kind of lifecycle as stars of it's type, based on their understanding of the chemical reactions occurring in a star are observations or other stars at various stages in their lifecycles. There is no claim that any of this is 100% guaranteed to happen, and there are wide variations on a lot of the timing, scale and scope, but I think the core principles seem fairly clear and consistent.

I still don't see what any of that has to do with claim that "science has all the answers to life" (whatever you actually meant by that) or what it has to do with any of the scientific discoveries/observations you highlighted. Maybe you should jut come straight out with the conclusion you want to voice rather than dancing around it as if nobody knows where you're coming from.

OK, I didn't use the right terminology. So the sun will blow up or implode, whatever, making it incapable, scientists predict, of preserving life on the Earth. But that's what they think/see NOW. They don't KNOW. They think they know. But it isn't necessarily true, or so, as the saying goes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have a good one. Bye for now...

Like I said, you just make claims and then run away. That is not a good look. Now if you wanted to you could have asked how they can measure the size of distant objects.

 

[HonestJoe]

OK, I didn't use the right terminology. So the sun will blow up or implode, whatever, making it incapable, scientists predict, of preserving life on the Earth. But that's what they think/see NOW. They don't KNOW. They think they know. But it isn't necessarily true, or so, as the saying goes.

Sure, but so what? As I said, nothing is guaranteed to be true, but some things are much more likely to be true than others, based on a clear and consistent understanding of the underlying processes and the ability to observe multiple other examples. It's probably worth noting that the recent observations on the Sun don't contradict the predicted lifecycle in any way what-so-ever.

And none of that has anything to do with the idea that "science has all the answers to life", assuming anyone who knows what they're talking about has said anything like that in the first place. I'm not sure what it has to do with "Science and Religion" for that matter either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, but so what? As I said, nothing is guaranteed to be true, but some things are much more likely to be true than others, based on a clear and consistent understanding of the underlying processes and the ability to observe multiple other examples. It's probably worth noting that the recent observations on the Sun don't contradict the predicted lifecycle in any way what-so-ever.

And none of that has anything to do with the idea that "science has all the answers to life", assuming anyone who knows what they're talking about has said anything like that in the first place. I'm not sure what it has to do with "Science and Religion" for that matter either.

As I said, there is no telling by scientists of what will happen for sure.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, there is no telling by scientists of what will happen for sure.

There is no telling by anyone. However science can study similar systems and events and get a good idea what may happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no telling by anyone. However science can study similar systems and events and get a good idea what may happen.

What may happen.

 

[ChristineM]

What may happen.

Im pretty sure this thread has gone into what may happen many times, i know early on in the thread i posted same (post #7) and im pretty sure you've contested the comments with nothing so im not going to waste my time

 

[HonestJoe]

As I said, there is no telling by scientists of what will happen for sure.

There is no telling by anyone what will happen for sure. Scientists don't claim to know anything for sure though (unlike certain people I could mention).

They claim to know what is most likely based on the observed evidence, and with a lot of things, that is extremely likely because there is some much consistent evidence. Pretty much everything we do in the modern world is based on scientific principles and on us all accepting those likely conclusions as fact. We couldn't actually do anything otherwise, including posting on this forum.

The simple bottom line is that there is absolutly nothing wrong with scientific method or practice, as long as it is used and understood correctly (which is where you either have, or are pretending to have, difficulty).

 

[shunyadragon]

A fact is something that has an objective reality and is known to be true. Explain to me how this can change.

New facts and information can change the conclusions based on previous facts.