http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
52 comments
What the Wright Brothers did was scientifically impossible? If by that you're referring to science at the time having the wrong value for the Smeaton coefficient, that's not quite the same as it being scientifically impossible.
And they certainly didn't struggle to get publicity because of the scientific validity of their claims - in fact, the press really wanted to see them and they were reluctant.
The Wright Brothers did what was scientifically sound - they went against current evidence and succeeded in breaking it. That is, unlike dogmatic religion, how science is supposed to work. While the fundies sat about twiddling thumbs and spouting that we'd have wings if God had meant for us to fly, the Wright brothers decided to think outside the box, challenge the scientific estabilishement of the day, and invent flight.
Science is all about trial and error... but then, this yo-yo, like anyone else who doesn't recognize the relationship between science and technology, reminds me very much of the story about the conservative who gets up on the weekend, has some food with the ingredients listed on the label matching the contents of the container, then sits down to the latest Penthouse Letters and complains about the liberals.
To put it another way: Robert Oppenheimer had invaluable assistance from engineers to get the bomb working, but said engineers would have not known what to do without the work Oppenheimer supervised to begin with.
Erm, no. Engineering is the product of science, or at least, it uses principles explained by science. The Wright brothers did practical scientific experiments to figure out the aerodynamic properties of various plane designs. Woah, wait... you think they were faking that flight?
Christian scientists. No, sorry, I think that's an oxymoron. I only know of scientists. They may be Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or whatever outside the lab, but they must not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their roles as scientists at all.
Funny, how when the Wright Bros. flew at Kitty Hawk there were 3 other teams of people trying to do the same "Impossible" thing. Why weren't the Wrights believed? Could it be that the three other teams in Brazil, France, and the United States were sponsored by thier governments and national pride was at stake?
What?
I do believe you are insulting my hometown and I challenge you to a duel... anyway, the plane they flew is on display in Dayton, and it doesn't look too different from any other bi-plane that you see in the sky.
Do you even know what Christian Scientists are? Or are you talking about scientists that are Christian... many scientists are, but they are able to mesh their beliefs with reality. This requires a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, as well as an ability to take reality at face value rather than trying to cram the square peg of the world into the round hole of rigid, dogmatic beliefs.
There are some crappy, completely discredited scientists who can't handle this, and yes, they do go looking for non-existant evidence to support their crack-brain hypothesis. At which point they cease to be scientists.
Science is the retarded cousin of engineering. The majority of human progress has been made through trial and error. When the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk is was scientifically impossible for them to have done so. This was such a prevailing view of the day that they actually struggled to get publicity because it was OBVIOUSLY a hoax.
Science and engineering are not distinct; there's massive overlap between them. Scientific ability makes a better engineer, and engineering ability makes a better scientist. The reason there were so many failed attempts at flight before the Wrights was precisely because of the mistake you make - people treated science and engineering as if they were separate, hence all the laughgable attempts at flying machines made by scientists with no engineering knowledge (they tended to fall apart), and also the equally laughable attempts made by engineers with no scientific knowledge (they tended to pay only lip service to scientific principles and hence also failed to work). Also, that one comment about trial and error really pisses me off - engineering is not pure trial and error, and neither was the Wright's flight - they made better use of the proper scientific method than anyone before them, they analysed everything, they performed wind tunnel tests on scale models to confirm theory, etc.
For fuck's sake, haven't you heard of Christain scientists? I mean, what did you think moron, that they sat about all day, twiddling their thumbs and occassionally announcing there was still no evidence? Or do you think they go about looking for evidence to match their persona theory of how the world started.http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
What you describe is not the scientific method.
"For fuck's sake, haven't you heard of Christain scientists? I mean, what did you think moron, that they sat about all day, twiddling their thumbs and occassionally announcing there was still no evidence?"
Well, that's what a lot of them do...
"Or do you think they go about looking for evidence to match their persona theory of how the world started."
And that's what the rest of them do.
"This was such a prevailing view of the day that they actually struggled to get publicity because it was OBVIOUSLY a hoax. "
The Wright brothers were obsessive about secrecy. They did not struggle to get publicity, they sruggled to avoid it. Your post was OBVIOUSLY pulled out of your ass.
"For fuck's sake, haven't you heard of Christain scientists?"
Yes
"I mean, what did you think moron, that they sat about all day, twiddling their thumbs and occassionally announcing there was still no evidence?"
Based on your post, yes.
"Or do you think they go about looking for evidence to match their persona theory of how the world started. "
THat's what they do.
Real scientists make conclusions from observations. Fundie scientists search for observations to prove their conclusions.
In fact, replace Christian with fundie, and your description of them is quite good.
"Or do you think they go about looking for evidence to match their persona theory of how the world started."
Yes, I think a lot of them do that. Take the CRI bunch for example.
There are scientists who are Christian, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom view the bible as metaphor and parable.
Then there are those "special" souls who push a literal seven-day creation fable and a single, catastrophic global flood as historical fact, even when the physical evidence for them doesn't exist, and even when the laws of physics rule them out, who still nevertheless refer to themselves as "scientists." A number of them don't actually have any formal training in the field of science that they dare to claim to work in from any accredited institution. Many or most of them also share a dangerous political and cultural agenda that is 180 degrees in opposition to the first group, as well as sheer common sense.
The difference between the two groups is that one group can create testable hypotheses. Try to guess which one it is.
Um, Clement Adler of France flew a steam powered aircraft 50 meters over a decade before the Wright Brothers took flight. There were dozens of other experimental hops in powered aircraft.
The Wright brother's real success is their reliable steering mechanism and a vastly increased understanding on the necessities of flight.In fact, you could say, they made aircraft a science.
Are christains just as retarded as christians? They sound like it. Yeah, Kitty Hawk, world war’s one and two etc. it was all a hoax. We really can’t get thousands of tons of metal airborne. You got us. Now what christian scientists (an oxymoron deluxe) do, is wait until someone else makes a discovery, and then they go back in the bible and try to align it with archaic and vague texts of things that may or mayn’t happen in the future.
I don't think you know what Christian Science is. It has nothing to do with science, but they are not generally creationists either. They have no objection to contemporary evolutionary theory, geology or cosmology. In fact, they tend to believe the bible is more symbolic than literal. All Christian scientists believe is that they can heal physically through prayer.
Engineering is, er, based on science.
Everything after that is just lies and ignorance.
For example: flight was not scientifically impossible. It was just considered highly unlikely at the time, and more by the common man than by scientists. DaVinci designed flying machines (though they didn't exactly work), remember.
Also, REAL scientists don't look for evidence to support their assertions. They make conclusions based on all current evidence. That's where your ID proponents fail.
@themann1086
Ah, more evidence for the Salem Hypothesis![/url]
Notwithstanding that Salem's Hypothesis is complete nonsense the post is actually only evidence of the RTS' complete ignorance of engineering.
Stop calling names and think. Engineery is a discipline that uses science as a key element. And there are no Christian scientists. Well, yes, there are, but there are like atheist, muslim or Jewish or Mormon or buddhist ones. They all study the same thing and work the same way.
"When the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk is was scientifically impossible for them to have done so."
Actually, scientists were devided on the issue. Many thought that no contemporary engine was light enough and powerful enough for sustained flight. A few thought that it would be a long time before any such engine could be made. No-one actually believed hevier-than-air flight was impossible, since they could all look at the sky and see birds doing it.
Of course a few were a bit bolder than others. Lord Kelvin for one, who famously declared
- Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Oh, and Kelvin was Christian Scientist who believed a designer God.
"I feel profoundly that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoological speculations." -- Lord Kelvin.
The Wrights did their homework, and studied the work of those who had worked with gliders, like Otto Lillienthal. Their engineering was sound. There is also photographic proof, taken prePhotoshop days.image
Science is the benevolent grandfather of engineering, stupid.
Christian scientists, aren't they called theologians?
It should also be impossible for anybody to be this stupid, but no such luck.
As for Christain(sic) scientists - how deep do they need to look into the "Goddidit" explanation(sic) for everything? It's bullshit, so they might as well twiddle their thumbs all day long.
The majority of human progress has been made through trial and error.
Yes. However, science is, in fact, advanced trial and error.
Meanwhile, fundamentalism is the polar opposite of trial and error: When you don't know something, make up something - or more likely, just use what someone else made up -, and refuse, frequently violently, to accept that you were wrong.
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.
