Replies

You have a totally unscientific turn of mind and have absolutely no idea how hard it was to accomplish most of the inventions we take for granted.

We've achieved some sort of symmetry. I'm thinking the same thing about you.

You must go to your search engine, pop in a word and then cut and paste whatever appears. You have no idea of the context of what you've grabbed, but its got the word you want in it, so it means what you think it means.

Now I thought we were talking about television, but you want to talk about gas discharge tubes. While its apparently true that Faraday coined the term "cathode", he did so in his work on electrolytic cells. He's not a good citation for cathode ray tubes because his work was done with gas discharge tubes and he thought he was pushing positively charged atoms. Not an easy thing to accomplish in a CRT.

But if you think Faraday's theory explains the workings of CRT's or gas discharge tubes, then explain how his theory allowed for the creation of gas discharge tubes more than 100 years before he was born. My own cut and paste:

"The concept behind neon signs was first conceived in 1675, when the French astronomer Jean Picard observed a faint glow in a mercury barometer tube. When the tube was shaken a glow called barometric light occurred, but the cause of the light (static electricity) was not then understood. "

And just so we're clear, this is not the starship captain.

"Now I thought we were talking about television, but you want to talk about gas discharge tubes."

No, we are not talking about television, we are talking about evolution. This is a side trip into science because evolutionists keep denying that science gives any proof.

So you say this guy invented the cathode ray tube used for tv in 1855. Great. What did he do with it? Did he get "I Love Lucy" in it? Whatever he did with it, I am sure he died as another pennyless inventor. Reason being that his invention was merely a toy, a curiosity. Even he did not know how it worked apparently, he just knew that somehow it worked. So he could not make any use of it because he did not have the theory behind it. When the theory behind it was learned, then it became an object of science, an object that could be turned into a useful application.

There is no doubt that things are sometimes discuvered by pure luck, however, without the theory behind it, without knowing why a thing works, they are mere curiosities. The job of science is to find out why, to find out how and with that knowledge to make things which work and are useful.

So as I have said, for evolution to be considered science it has to have a stated theory, and proof that the theory works. Care to show such proof or do you wish to continue to sidetrack this evolution thread?