Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Mister Agenda]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's simply speculation.

That's kind of my point, but sure. I'm rather interested in how you arrived at one of the alternative answers, and which one you agree with: 'probably' or 'even odds'?

If you read back, when I make claims about my friend's opinions, I follow it with "do you also have this opinion, why or why not"? Those are clarifying questions that seem reasonable (and respectful) to ask to determine how to proceed with the conversation.

Haven't bothered to look back, and I don't doubt you, but it sure FEELS like 'what your friends say' has been addressed multiple times. When will we have addressed it enough for you to stop bringing it up? I'm just asking for an estimate.

Such as the "constant" Big G?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...lide-show/

The attractive force (F) between two bodies is still directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them, yes. The value of the constant is an approximation because it is very difficult to measure accurately. Being able to measure it more accurately is what one would hope would happen as research continues.

From the article you cited: "Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G. We know the strength of gravity hasn’t been fluctuating over the past 200 years, for example, because if so, the orbits of the planets around the sun would have changed, Quinn says."

A simple one would with regard to the "geocentric universe", man, did that throw people for a loop...

An idea formulated before the idea of developing descriptions of natural laws doesn't seem to fit the bill, nor is 'the universe revolves around the earth' a constant or law, and this religious teaching certainly shouldn't be laid at the foot of science, but it is interesting.

What data was misunderstood in your example? If you look up at night, it appears that the universe is revolving around the earth. To a goatherder, for all intents and purposes, that is what was happening. Did they misinterpret the data, or just not have all the information yet? They were wrong, but not as wrong as they would have been if they had concluded the universe is static. When more information was acquired, and the Church stopped persecuting those working on the science, the geocentric view was revised, and replaced with what could be called an actual scientific model. But from the point of view of an iron age goatherder, the previous model was equally useful. But it was a model, not a law or constant.