Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of planets and solar systems...etc..
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 40 (643381)
12-06-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2011 2:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 2:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 8:28 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 40 (643385)
12-06-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2011 2:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 8:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 40 (643430)
12-06-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mike the wiz
12-06-2011 2:50 PM


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.
Then it was a singularly ill-chosen example.
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.
Well, you are a creationist, aren't you? You opened this post by quoting creationist lies; it was not clear that when you referred to another creationist lie it was as a hypothetical rather than as an example of something you thought was true.
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.
This has, of course, nothing to do with anything I wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 2:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2011 8:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 34 of 40 (643431)
12-06-2011 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
12-06-2011 2:59 PM


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.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 2:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 35 of 40 (643455)
12-07-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
12-06-2011 12:40 PM


Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
That is not analogous to what I say. Your analogy has to be equivalent in every way, you have to show the substitutions.
Analogies don't really work like that. You can't deduce how one situation will behave by matching it up with an analogy you can only use them to illustrate a point and I'm afraid you've missed mine.
There is plentiful evidence that the solar system formed from a nebulous disc. There are problems with the details of how that happened but these problems don't touch on the original evidence. That's still there, still compelling and still lacking a decent alternative explanation.
You can't disprove a big picture (that would be the car crash in my analogy) by arguing that details of the little picture (that would be idea that the driver was drunk) are wrong. If you want to show that the solar system didn't form from a nebulous disc you need to address the evidence that led to that conclusion not points about the detail of how it happened. All that shows is that a particular idea about how it happened is wrong; it doesn't mean that there isn't another solution that we've missed so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 12:40 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2011 7:34 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
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: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 40 (643460)
12-07-2011 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2011 8:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 8:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2011 8:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 40 (643461)
12-07-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
12-07-2011 7:34 AM


Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
You don't have an example of planetary evolution, you have planets.
No. We have an awful lot more than just "planets". The hypothesis is based on the arrangement of the planets, their patterns of positioning and rotation. The pattern and positioning of the rotation of their satellites, and other bodies in the solar system. Of the substances of which they are constructed and of the many extrasolar observations that appear to show stages in the formation of a solar system.
When Watson and Crick were figuring out the structure of DNA, and they incorrectly deduced a triple stranded structure they didn't conclude that DNA didn't have a structure, or that DNA wasn't, after all, the chemical of inheritance; they deduced that they had got their structure wrong and looked again at working it out.
The same applies here: being wrong about the details has no impact on the observations that led to the conclusion regarding the bigger 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.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you want to address whether something happened you need to address the evidence for it; not the details of a theory as to how exactly it happened.
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.
That's a completely different situation. There your green ball is direct evidence against the hypothesis that all the balls are red.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2011 7:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 40 (643463)
12-07-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
12-07-2011 8:02 AM


Re: Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
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.
And so when you recite creationist nonsense, it is not clear when you mean it hypothetically, and when you actually mean it.
You misunderstood what I said, that's all. Is it a bad example because you didn't read properly?
It is a bad example because it is an example of something that didn't actually happen. There are lots of intermediate forms. If you want to produce an example of scientists being confuted by contrary evidence, then a better example would be a case in which they were, in fact, confuted by contrary evidence, rather than an example of a case in which in reality they were triumphantly vindicated.
Otherwise it just gets a bit weird. If you wanted to explain to someone what a carnivore was, would you say: "Well, for example, if cucumbers eat carrots, and carrots are made of meat, then cucumbers are carnivores"? That would be a bad example of a carnivore, 'cos of it being an example of something which is not in fact carnivorous eating something which it does not in fact eat and which is not in fact meat.
It goes a long way when you say such people are liars when they clearly aren't.
Er ... but they clearly are liars. And I note that you have not even tried to defend the lies that I have exposed. I showed up the lie, plain and simple. You won't even attempt to defend it. And yet you claim that they "clearly aren't" liars. Well, on the face of it, they clearly are. This is why I can show that they are with evidence and you have nothing to say in their defense but the mere assertion of a negative.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 12-07-2011 8:02 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
frankdotsonn 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 04-05-2012


Message 40 of 40 (658449)
04-05-2012 4:11 AM


The post provides the detailed explanation about the solar system and the evolution of it. The links produced helps for the more view. Could you please produce some more attachment links for the latest updates and revolutions of this?
solar systems
solar roof
Edited by Admin, : Spamify the links.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024