Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

[numberwang]

JWeinCom said:

numberwang said:

Take a physics book form a hundred years ago and think about all the true facts

- atoms can not be split
- the milky way is all of the universe
- the universe is static, eternal and had no beginning
- light is movement of the aether

Think again how much we will discard from our facts in a hundred years

Ehhhhh.... I don't think any of that is right.

By 1917 there were experiments already being conducted about the existence of protons and neutrons.  At that point, they knew atoms could be divided.

There was no concensus that the milky way was all of the universe.  The more common theory (proposed in the 1500) was that the universe was infinite.  So there were questions about it before then.  Einstein was the one who brought the idea of a finite universe into prominence.

I believe the theory of lumineferous aether was not that light is moving aether, but that aether was a medium through which light could travel.  There was still debate over lights as particles or waves, and I don't think the theory was ever touted as fact.  Either way, the Michaelson-Morley experiments tested for aether in the 1800s, and effectively disproved the theory, or at the very least cast extreme doubt.

Was there any proof of atoms not being a tomos (in-dividual) before Otto Hahn in 1938? Rutherford's experiments in 1917 paved the way, but that was also a hundred years ago.

Is there any scientific publication that postulates the existance of other galaxies before 1917?

Point is not to argue at what specific time scientific facts got overthrown - the history of science is perpetual change of consencus, no reason to believe our facts remain. Whatever dark energy & matter is will likely overthrow existing concepts of reality again.

The big money question if if our mode of acquiring knowledge will ever lead forward to a truth (if such a thing exists ontological) or perpetual sidestepping like the last thousands of years.