|
Author
|
Topic: The evolution of planets and solar systems...etc..
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 40 (642988)
12-03-2011 4:18 PM
|
|
|
From Creation Ministries International Som excerpts of the general picture of facts.
CMI writes: Thus experiments have failed to show that mere collision of particles can make them stick(planetary building blocks) and grow into larger bodies under conditions believed to exist in the early solar system. Have theorists therefore considered accretion theory to be falsified? The answer is No. Instead, the concept of gravitational instabilities was introduced to explain how colliding particles might be forced to adhere despite their natural tendency not to. --SNIP-- With lack of experimental confirmation of accretion spanning several decades, what are we to make of confident descriptions of accretion. --SNIP-- Beyond the 1-meter particle size, problems develop which not even theoretical models have solved: For meter sizes, coupling to nebula turbulence makes destructive processes more likely. Global aggregation models show that in a turbulent nebula, small particles are swept up too fast to be consistent with observations of disks.17 Even computer modeling designed to demonstrate accretion shows that particles 1 meter and larger are more likely to be destroyed than grow.--SNIP-- After almost a century of futile search for a nebular hypothesis replacement, German physicist von Weiszacher (1912—2007) adjusted equations for the nebular hypothesis to make it produce a solar system arranged according to Bode’s law.34,35 But extrasolar planetary systems do not follow Bode’s law (nor does Neptune in our solar system), and the nebular hypothesis has not explained them, a point discussed below. From the 1940s onward, Von Weiszacher’s efforts were generally accepted as making the nebular hypothesis scientifically acceptable. But was this really the case? The answer is No, because as we will see, observational evidence for it is lacking. And as with accretion theory, the nebular hypothesis has become more complex with time because the simpler failed. The nebular hypothesis now includes (1) an accretion stage; (2) a planetesimal formation stage; (3) a planetary core (planetary embryos) stage; and (4) a planetary migration stage.36 The planetary migration stage is necessary because, according to theory, once planetary cores have formed, they are in the wrong places to resemble a planetary system, so must be made to ‘migrate’ to their proper location. We have seen that observational evidence for the accretion stage is absent, but so are data confirming the other stages.--SNIP-- (mike the wiz asks; Do stars form?)--SNIP--If the nebular hypothesis were true, astronomers should see stars forming from debris contracting inward, as the sun supposedly did. But no one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming.45 Accordingly, theorists have concluded that, Giant molecular clouds are not collapsing dynamically and have, in fact, generally a very low efficiency for stellar genesis.47 Thus, GMCs cannot be expected to collapse into stars, despite the widespread belief that they are. Gravitational collapse cannot happen in a diffuse, rarified gas cloud to form a star; it is not dense enough. The only way for a cool interstellar cloud to contract from nebular to stellar dimensions is to be dense enough so that the gravitational attraction of its particles for each other is strong enough to start it contracting.48 Thus theorists recognize that a GMC cannot begin collapsing on its own. There must be an external force to bring the GMC to a density high enough to trigger collapse. Nebular theory must suppose that another physical body provides this force, such as other clouds already in collapse or unstable stars sending shock waves (density waves) into the surrounding space. Thus the theory presumes the pre-existence of a successfully-collapsing cloud or an already-formed star, which is what the theory seeks to explain in the first place. As theorists have said, Star formation can also be induced [or] triggered by a mechanism external to the clump. Shocks, which can be due to supernovae [unstable stars] or to cloud-cloud collisions, have been invoked frequently as a mechanism for inducing star formation.49 In other words, The general model requires some mechanism to trigger a cloud’s collapse: a supernova explosion, a shock wave from the galaxy’s spiral arms, cloud collisions, or stellar winds. Why clouds don’t collapse on their own is still a ‘great mystery’. I recommend reading all the article. I think the mental gymnastics invoked for the continuation of a theory of evolution-everything, becomes ludicrous in light of the facts. It seems dogged determination to prove ones beliefs is more prevailing than any attempt to falsify such beliefs. Granted, you might not agree with the article, in every respect, but I think anyone could see the gymnastics from the facts in hand. Am I saying, therefore, that, "Goddidit". No, I don't need to, I have faith He did and I believe the facts agree, I just think scientists of the mainstream-variety have more faith than me, in all and every kind of "evolution", despite clear facts usually being abscent compared to conjectural proposals. Nevertheless I apreciate the scientist's attempts to persevere, I don't think that a wrong answer and blanks means that you should never propose anything. I just think that a scientific explanation for everything is not realistic. (With that in mind, I believe the article is interesting in it's entirety, and this is NOT an attack on evolutionists, or an attempt to agree with everything in the article myself, given my disclaimer that scientists should persevere. But rather that the facts should dictate their direction of investigation.) I think a general picture, for me, shows that more theory than fact, seems to exist, when it comes to historical science such as origins. I believe science is overestimated. That's all. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by Larni, posted 12-03-2011 6:04 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 3 by frako, posted 12-03-2011 6:24 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 4 by jar, posted 12-03-2011 6:37 PM | | mike the wiz has replied | | | Message 5 by Panda, posted 12-03-2011 6:38 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2011 7:36 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2011 7:54 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2011 8:10 AM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 18 of 40 (643346)
12-06-2011 11:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
12-03-2011 6:37 PM
|
|
Re: Same old problems Mike
You don't know what evidence is. Evidence is either the consequent or the ponen (confirmation) and the tollens (falsification). I am not providing evidence FOR creationism in the O.P. I am showing a source that is showing examples of falsification to theories of planetry evolution. Nothing to do with special creation. Everything to do with highlighting the problems of accepted theories.
Do you ever plan on presenting ANY evidence that supports Special Creation? I have presented evidence in the ponen confirming form, it is not acknowledged as evidence, instead it is stated ad nauseum that it is not evidence. i.e. If you claimed snails produced snails and you find a snail in the Cambrian, the evolutionist will state that it is not logically "evidence" that snails have produced snails. Therefore, if the evolutionist removes not only the goal posts, but the goal itself, how can I score? There are other examples I have shown, which are examples of falsification evidence, in other topics. You are right, falsifying planetry evolution will not mean a special creation follows, logically. That part of your post is correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by jar, posted 12-03-2011 6:37 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 12-06-2011 12:14 PM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 19 of 40 (643347)
12-06-2011 12:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
12-04-2011 8:10 AM
|
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
How do you explain the long survival of this theory? Isn't that the whole point? What should matter most? Falsification evidence OR explanations? Logically, the original evidence matters otherwise you have LOST the predictive power of your theory. For example, if you predict transitional fossils, and you don't find them, so you postulate explanations, that is all very well, and how accepted by the scientific mainstream those postulations are, is altogether irrelevant. It would not matter if a million Einsteins all agreed, all that matters is the logic. The sources from which I quoted would correctly tell you that they have chosen to stick with those theories despite the problems. This proves only one thing, their desire to stay with the theory, rather than go where the facts lead. Confirming evidence of such theories, or "prevailing" theories, is perhaps the weakest form of logic possible, in that it does not address the logical problems. You forget that a theory, no matter how evidences, is not important compared to even one falsification, because of the deductive weight of the tollens. Is it my fault you don't understand this? No.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2011 8:10 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 22 of 40 (643352)
12-06-2011 12:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
12-06-2011 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: Same old problems Mike
Yes, you have presented no evidence. Of what? Special Creation? I didn't intend to. But by all means state things over and over again, I am sure it proves something to you at least. I'm baffled by the comment. Did I make a topic about a Creator, or give a link to a subject about planetary evolution?
Do you7 have any evidence of the supposed Creator or Designer? Lots. There is lots of evidence for this, and this evidence will not mean there is a Creator or a designer in the least, necessarily because confirmation evidence is not a big deal. I know it is your favourite epithet but there was "evidence" for lots of theories that are now REFUTED by falsification evidence. This thread is not about providing confirmation evidence for a Creator or a Designer. The O.P. is an example of those arguing the falsification-problems for existing and prevailent evolutionary theories. I am just giving a link for reading, not debating Creationism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 12-06-2011 12:14 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 26 of 40 (643360)
12-06-2011 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Jack
12-06-2011 12:24 PM
|
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Continuing your investigation you discover that the driver had arrived at the scene after leaving a pub. From this you put forth the hypothesis that the driver was drunk and this led to the accident. To test this hypothesis you take a breath alcohol sample from the driver and discover that, in fact, they have not been drinking. According to your argument we should, from this falsification, discard the hypothesis that there was a car crash. That is not analogous to what I say. Your analogy has to be equivalent in every way, you have to show the substitutions. What I am saying (and I have said very little, if anything), is that you have a car crash, and YOU, have a prevailing theory as to how that car crash happened. Let us say that everybody (the mainstream) accepts that a drunken man caused the collission. Now let us show confirmation evidence; 1. The man could not walk in a straight line 2. The man slurred his words. 3. The man was behaving exactly like a drunkard. 4. The man was tested for alcohol. All of these confirmation matter a lot. But what about falsification evidence? Now we find out that the drunken man was not driving, that he swapped seats with the driver, because the real driver feared that he was over the limit when in fact he was within the limit? I think what I am saying is that there are lots of problems, from readind that article, which you may or may not be able to explain away, and even lots of confirmation evidence is not necessarily of any logical weight. If you are saying that a solar system in itself shows an evolution, then that is circular reasoning. You are saying that you have already assumed the truth of that evolution. The problems with such theories, logically, have much, much more weight because falsification evidences are deductive reasoning, whereas an induction of confirming evidence is inductive, unless you have 100% positive evidence. You might say, "oh well, sure, we acknowledge the problems of the theory". What I am saying is that such a flippant attitude will not scale the Mount Everest that falsification-factors provide. Look at the planets in this system alone, and the problems mentioned such as the speed of the particle in joining and making an object rather than obliterating. Saying, "we have planets" is circular. Those planets do not prove the theory. Look at the following form of argument;
We accept abiogenesis. We are here afterall, so there must have been abiogenesis. The problem with that argument is that you could take out the term, "abiogenesis" and replace it with "my big pink wife that farted us into existence" The evolution of planets is a proposal as to how the planets came to be. Only the strictest logic will prove such a proposal, to say it is accepted and prevailent is a very slippery way to procede, the very laws of science and logic work well through viability, not through proof. You can't prove the theory, you can only make it viable without 100% of the positive induction. So yes, problems for these theories are very, very important, since it will take remarkable valuable evidence to make it "viable" let alone proven.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 12-06-2011 12:24 PM | | Dr Jack has replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 27 of 40 (643361)
12-06-2011 12:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Panda
12-06-2011 12:33 PM
|
|
Re: Same old problems Mike
It is not any of that. Showing the problems for a theory isn't necessarily a problem for another potential theory. I mentioned that in the opening post, when I said that scientists should persevere. So if you falsify a natural theory to planetry creation, you can have another one. In this case, I actually would prefer them to have another go. Sure - they can go in circles forever, in that we have a JTB that they were created, as we have been told. I would not go as far as to make it science though. (I am not saying that creation is scientific, all the time, it has elements). Nor does those theories being incorrect mean they are not brilliant. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Panda, posted 12-06-2011 12:33 PM | | Panda has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
A worthless post that did not have any information, just the usual ad hominem attitude I come to expect. If you stopped to listen, maybe read over what I said, and thought about it, ironically you would see that what I say is genuine. I'm not just out to get you. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 12:32 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Don't tell me that you thought I was actually claiming something with what I said in that message. No really, is that what you actually thought - that I was having a go at transitionals? The point was actually about logic itself, not transitionals. It was an example of logic, (to show that a million informed people would not make a theory correct simply if they believed it true)
For example, if you predict pink elephants , and you don't find them, so you postulate explanations, that is all very well, and how accepted by the scientific mainstream those postulations are, is altogether irrelevant. It would not matter if a million Einsteins all agreed, all that matters is the logic. A theory being, "prevailent" does not mean it is true, otherwise, all of the "prevailent" theories of the past, such as spontaneous generation, or whatever was prevailent back then, would still be prevailent now. If prevailent or "accepted" = true, then that would mean to you were treating a mainstream consensus as an absolute. That was my point, it had nothing to do with transitionals, I merely USED the term for the example I was giving, this is why I told you to read into my posts instead of cynically scanning them, as though I am bursting to state something ugly about evolution. Focussing upon what theory is deemed as viable by the mainstream is not any standard of logical at all, apart from maybe an example of a sophisticated consensus, or in other words, a very sophisticated ad-populum argument. The point is that logic is king, period, no matter what authority you appeal to, no matter how sophisticated the authority.
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
No, because if you are saying that a theory of planetary evolution is the car crash, then you are stating, (again, LOGICALLY) - you are stating, (logically) that the actual planets themselves, and the solar systems, are the theory itself. This is to conflate the facts with the theory. (or circular reasoning) The facts are that planets and such systems exist (the car crash) the theory would be to say how they got there. (the drunken man). Theories are factual but facts aren't theories. I mentioned this, and have explained it several times on this forum. I appreciate and enjoyed Mr Jack's analogy, but if there was something to make the facts synonymous with the theory, I would perhaps even agree with him. If, for example, experiments shown that collisions of particles could make them stick, at over a metre in diameter, that would indeed be an evidence. From the link I read, it was negligible as to whether this would lead to a viable growth towards a planet. If there are constant observations of planets being produced by this kind of evolution, rather than posited, then fair play, the analogy would indeed match reality. (Note the word, "evolution" does not have to refer to the theory of evolution. I am not stating anything about biological evolution, I am merely using the term, "evolution", as in, planets forming naturally through a process of accumulated matter.) If I use the term, "evolution" or, "transitional", this does not mean I am stating something about the ToE, or even transitionals. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 8:31 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 36 of 40 (643459)
12-07-2011 7:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Jack
12-07-2011 6:52 AM
|
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Analogies don't really work like that. How convenient. But I prefer something that can be analyzed, so as to discern when it is a fair analogy. In your analogy, you are conflating facts with the theory. You are saying, there was a car crash because of the evidence which is to affirm the consequent. You don't have an example of planetary evolution, you have planets. Your "evidence" can not be logically regarded as the facts, your evidence for a hypothesis/theory can only be represented as the consequent in a conditional implication. The antecedant is the hypothesis. This is why I say that confirmation evidence is only inductive, because no matter how much of it confirms your theory, this does not mean the theory is necessarily true. If I have a ball of clay it does not matter how good the evidence is that it was formed by chance, that evidence will not affirm the consequent, it is fallacious because inductive reasoning is not deductive.
You can't disprove a big picture (that would be the car crash in my analogy) by arguing that details of the little picture The epithets, "big" and "little" are not relevant. You are proclaiming a fallacy-of-Exclusivity which is when all of the confirming evidence is regarded as solely relevant, whereas a piece of small evidence is ignored. I don't know if you have read my red-balls hypothesis, but it goes like this. I have a hypothesis that balls are only red, I have a billion red balls to prove it the "big" evidence you speak of, and I have one green ball to disprove it. The "little" evidence you speak of. Can you see the difference between the confirmation evidence in this scenario and the falsification evidence? That difference is the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. The evidence for planetry evolution, you say, is there, and that there are "problems". This is a euphemism for what logic calls, "falsification evidence". When you say it is a problem that matter does not attach and grow beyond a metre for example, that would actually go against the predictions. Example; IF planets evolve this way, THEN we should expect the particles to attach and grow. IF they do not then planets did not evolve this way. That is a falsification. It does not mean that planets did not evolve, it means that your theory has become astoundingly weak according to LOGIC. Now to scientists, they might think this is just a "problem" or a "little" thing, and they can have that opinion but the logic will not change. Logically you can only proceed with posteriori ad-hoc explanations of WHY this falsification evidence exists but even if you do, your theory has become astoundingly weak because deductively it has falsification evidence. Don't forget, the burden of proof is always upon the theory, therefore it's confirmation inductive evidence must always be astoundingly impressive because of the potential non sequitur. (within the initial proposal) Now we could just do the easy thing, and say, "creationist lies", and ignore such problems. Or, we could be reasonable and realize that all theories have, "problems" therefore the creationist can't be lying when he highlights them. Sure, the Creationist will state that the theories are thwarted, and over-emphasize the falsification evidence to his own gain, that is only natural bias, the same bias the evolutionist will show towards and induction of confirmation evidence. But we are logically on stronger ground, because deductive reasoning allows falsification, "little", "problems", to be astoundingly powerful against the astonishingly flimsy confirmation-picture. Logically, one piece of confirmation evidence is like a feather, otherwise you could state the following;
IF there are only red balls then we will find red balls
we find one red ball, therefore only red balls exist. Can you see the problem yet? P.S. (I must have expounded the above information maybe 20 times at EvC forum. Please, someone, anyone who gets it, let me know. Let me know I am not wasting my time again). Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2011 6:52 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2011 8:06 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
Well, you are a creationist, aren't you? I am a Gryffindor. Does that mean that I agree with fellow-Gryffindors about everything, or that I have the same coloured hair? I don't like the term, "Creationist" but unfortunately I have to use it on myself as it is the closest match there is to describing myself in a way that evolutionists will understand. Intellectually, I am not a Creationist. By faith and belief, I am. Intellectually, I am not satisfied, logically-speaking, by either creationism or evolution. The reasons are complex, but I can give a few basic examples. Creationism, for example is not sophisticated, and you have to assume the biblical God firstly exists. You can't include it fully as "science", you can only evaluate it logically. Not that I worship science, I prize logic, above anything else but in comparison to my faith, it is a laughable irrelevance. I enjoy the honest creationists I have listened to in-depth, and listened to their specific explanations. It goes a long way when you say such people are liars when they clearly aren't. Perhaps you meant that some=all, but I think it is more your own cynicism and fears that people will value Creationism above the ToE which leads to these band-wagon tactics. For didn't you know, an actual refutation is far more valuable than ad hominem phlegm.
Then it was a singularly ill-chosen example. You misunderstood what I said, that's all. Is it a bad example because you didn't read properly? Transitionals are another topic entirely. Organisms are tautological. They are similar because they are of the same kind. Mammals for example. (Not creationist kinds) I am, to an extent, undecided as to how valuable they are because of the problem that such groups will always lead to similarities in DNA by virtue of the fact that they are mammals, whether there be an evolution or not. I have questions, and if those questions could be satisfied I would "allow" them as evidence, but for logical reasons, they are a particularly weak example of evidence, unless you can show close DNA, then they are a bit of a stronger example. ERVs amongst chimps and humans, go a bit further toward quality evidence, rather than simple proof-by-ranking based on similar morphology which is usually superficial difference, such as gracile skulls compared with archaic. Logically, there are problems I have mentioned in the past that have not been explained adequately or understood even though these problems are logical problems of very high relevance.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2011 8:19 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2