Given that the definition of "science" is derived from the Latin root scire which means "to know", and the definition of "assumption" is "to take for granted or to suppose", each person is free to determine whether the Helio or the Geo Model is true science. Just remember: Every time you watch the Sun when it rises, when it is high noon, and when it sets, you must assume that it isn’t doing what your eyes tell you it is doing, but that it only appears to be moving because the Earth is allegedly turning under your feet at several hundred miles an hour. And when you see the Moon in all its phases come up in the east and set in the west, reject what you see. "Science" has trained you to assume that it is going precisely the opposite direction at about 2200 MPH. Then rejoice that you "know" that each assumption is correct because of the correctness of the other assumptions that each is based upon, and because everybody everywhere has learned of their correctness in school.
36 comments
Just to clarify a bit further (since I have no edit button >_<), from the online etymology dictionary:
science Look up science at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)). Modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. Main modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions ... concerning any subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy.
Fortunately all of that silly "science" is backed up by centuries of observation and research done by actual smart people with actual knowledge and equipment, so we don't have to get our information from morons like you who pull idiotic opinions out of their asses. Oh, and, we have pictures, too.
Uhh, no. Massive fail followed by word salad.
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split.
No where does science 'make assumptions'. That is left to fundies and morons.
The title of the page is "From Copernicanism Through Big Bangism."
What the heck is a Big Bangist? A member of the Excessive, Sleazy and Highly Salicious Mass Orgy Party?
Nothing is fixed. Our Earth wiggles, our sun wiggles. Our solar system wiggles. Hell, even the galaxy wiggles around with all the others like so many other galaxies like amoebas having a slow motion argument. That's life, a very busy place.
@POSW:
To account for that he'd probably cite Ptolomy which talks about these things called epicycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system ). I have to admit it is a pretty ingenious system, the only problem was that for 2000 "natural philosophers" spent most of their time trying to account for these epicycles since they never seemed to mesh up; the problem was that everybody theorized that the planets were moving in circles. It wasn't until Keppler came around did they finally have a model that made mathematical sense, and could work every time.
People have stood on the Moon and watched the Earth turn. Why should they disbelieve their eyes any more than Marshall Hall feels we on Earth shouldn't disbelieve ours?
According to Marshall, they should have felt themselves whirling around us at over 64,000 mph (one lunar "orbit" every 24 hours in a geocentric model, remember). Instead the ground was still beneath their feet.
A fact explainable by science, but not by the bronze age madness of the likes of Hall.
Car travels, you inside... everything outside seems to be moving and you have to assume it's not doing what your eyes say it's doing.
Simply put... from the point of view of someone in the car, things outside are indeed moving past you... yet you would never try to claim they ARE doing that.
The same applies to things off of the planet... from our point of view, they are moving, yet we have seen things from another point of view that shows the Earth is indeed moving.
You can argue against that all you want... but it's as sane as claiming the car doesn't move, the planet does!
The only way these people can deny heliocentrism and a spherical earth, is if they also deny math, physics, and that man has never been in space. The only assumptions here are your pathetic theories that you pulled out of your ass.
Also the world is flat, it is also hollow and we live on the inside of it (this may seem impossible as the world is flat but I assure you it is true). The sky is actually bellow you and you are held to the 'floor' by turtleism, a well known force that reverses the effects of gravity. The scientific community is well aware of all this, but are not going public because of threats/bribes from the NWO, UN, democrats, Freemasons, Jews, aliens, reptroids (including turtles), the royal family, the Antichrist, Illuminati, atheists and the homosexual agenda.
Also the world is flat, it is also hollow and we live on the inside of it (this may seem impossible as the world is flat but I assure you it is true). The sky is actually bellow you and you are held to the 'floor' by turtleism, a well known force that reverses the effects of gravity. The scientific community is well aware of all this, but are not going public because of threats/bribes from the NWO, UN, democrats, Freemasons, Jews, aliens, reptroids (including turtles), the royal family, the Antichrist, Illuminati, atheists and the homosexual agenda.
"#923529
wat
"No where does science 'make assumptions'."
Uh, yes it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
Every philosophy as basic assumptions, but some are more meaningful than others."
Naturalism and science are not interchangeable words. While naturalism (usually) defers to science philosophically, science does not require a naturalist philosophy in order to work. Science relies on evidence, verifiable data and repeated testing.
Science is a method of acquiring facts, not an ideology. It's as much a philosophy as mathematics; I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise.
This is actually a very interesting philosophical point that has been used as an argument FOR science. After all, just because our natural assumptions that time is absolute or that the earth is flat doesn't make it true, does it? I think this could make an interesting debate if used in a different context.
However, Marshall's choice of topics to argue against have been thoroughly proved by modern science, which leaves him sounding rather deluded.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.