Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
21 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,215 Year: 963/23,288 Month: 963/1,851 Week: 86/321 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accretion Theory and an alternative
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 173 of 257 (656548)
03-19-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Jet Thomson
03-19-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Accretion problems and exoplanets
Taken from this website:

http://creation.com/...asolar-planets-problems-for-evolution

I wonder what your newfound creationist pals would think of you.

There are significant scientific problems with attempts to explain the formation of stars and planets from clouds of gas and dust.6 , 7 One main issue is that the hypothetical disk of gas and dust tends to dissipate too fast for the resulting planets to become as large as they are observed to be.

Oooh, if only they had any evidence for this.

Besides the quandry of deciding if Hot Jupiters form close to the star and migrate out or the reverse ...

Well, we have math and physics on our side. You have a synthetic poriferan on a stick. It's not much of a quandry.

I suspect that there are Hot Jupiters that that are unexplianed because of the lack of mechanisms postulated to cause mighration.

I suspect that there aren't. Why don't you go and find one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-19-2012 6:46 PM Jet Thomson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-20-2012 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 192 by foreveryoung, posted 03-20-2012 2:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 190 of 257 (656592)
03-20-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by foreveryoung
03-20-2012 2:35 AM


Re: Hot Jupiters
How do we ever really come to any vastly new understanding if we limit ourselves to only those things that are not unusual? Why not just investigate ...

Well, this is the investigation. What you later in your post describe as an "intellectual inquisition" is precisely the investigation. How else would you suggest that we should "investigate" an idea?

I personally think that the attitudes of the scientific community as displayed on this board are responsible for the retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years. I know you will protest that there has been a great increase in knowledge. True, but I believe it could have been even greater without the current shackles placed upon it by the intellectual inquisition that is typified by the members on this board.

It is true that without the "intellectual inquisition" we would have accepted new and important truths faster than has been the case. But we would also have accepted a whole lot of complete bullshit as if it was important truths, and we wouldn't know which was which. And that would not be scientific progress.

Without the "inquisition", if you caught bubonic plague we wouldn't know whether to give you antibiotics or to denounce Evil Western Medicine and offer you crystal healing instead.

Yes, we put "shackles" on new ideas. The ideas that are strong burst out of those shackles. That's the test of an idea.

And you will note that the very craziest-sounding ideas have in fact gained credence as a result of this process. Relativity, quantum theory, the non-conservation of parity --- these are the craziest ideas I can think of. In fact, I will admit that they are so crazy that I myself would never have thought of them. But someone did, and they have been incorporated into science --- because they withstood the "inquisition".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by foreveryoung, posted 03-20-2012 2:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 195 of 257 (656613)
03-20-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by foreveryoung
03-20-2012 2:24 PM


Evidence
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper ...

Not for things that are actually true.

I think that giraffes exist. If you started "howling about evidence" then I could cite you eyewitness accounts, I could show you photographs, I could show you videos, and if all else failed I could buy you a ticket to the zoo. You could "howl about evidence" and I could stop your howling by showing you evidence. It wouldn't be a "conversation stopper", it would be a conversation starter. Because I'm right, giraffes do exist.

Asking for evidence is only a conversation stopper to people who don't have any evidence.

Why don't you make a counter claim ...

I have. With links to actual scientific papers rather than the unevidenced maunderings of cranks.

But that's actually by-the-by. In order to reject an idea that has no evidence for it, there is no obligation on me to produce a counter claim. If Fred Bloggs is accused of murder, then it is sufficient for me to show that there is no evidence connecting him to the murder and that at the time of the crime he was on another continent as verified by two hundred eyewitnesses. That shoots down that hypothesis. I don't also need to produce a "counter claim" where I prove who did commit the murder.

You're interested in geology, aren't you? Well, back a few centuries ago, some guy (whose name I could look up if you want) suggested that geological observations could be explained by the Earth's gravity being turned off for a bit and then turned back on. Now, would I really need to develop a theory of geology that actually worked in order to point out the problems with this hypothesis and reject it? If so, then people should have believed that hypothesis until the development of real geology. Do you think that they should have done so?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by foreveryoung, posted 03-20-2012 2:24 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by foreveryoung, posted 03-22-2012 1:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 196 of 257 (656617)
03-20-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by foreveryoung
03-20-2012 2:35 AM


Dragon Box
Why not just investigate ...

I personally think that the attitudes of the scientific community as displayed on this board are responsible for the retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years. I know you will protest that there has been a great increase in knowledge. True, but I believe it could have been even greater without the current shackles placed upon it by the intellectual inquisition that is typified by the members on this board.

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper ...

Suppose I say to you that I've caught a small fire-breathing dragon and have it in this box.

Well, you're not closed-minded, so you're willing to "just investigate" this claim. You do not want us to "limit ourselves to only those things that are not unusual". You are happy to "use a little imagination". So you want to "just investigate". Hoorah!

How would you "just investigate" this claim? You'd ask me to open the box and show you the dragon. Wouldn't you?

But then I refuse. I explain that "howling about evidence" is a "conversation stopper". I don't have to show you any evidence, your demands for it just show how closed-minded you are. Tsk tsk.

So then you ask me why, in that case, you should believe my claim to have a dragon. And I explain to you that this sort of "intellectual inquisition" is exactly what has "retarded growth of scientific knowledge in the last 50 years", and that the frontiers of zoology will be advanced immeasurably if you'd just stop "placing shackles" on the "increase of knowledge".

And then I sit on the box, occasionally spluttering out the words "howling about evidence" and "intellectual inquisition" and "shackles!" as and when the fancy takes me.

Now, you think you should "just investigate" my claim. Great. I commend you on your openness to new ideas. But how are you going to investigate my claim? Remember, the "intellectual inquisition" is out, and "howling about evidence" is out, and questioning my unevidenced assertions is placing "shackles" on the "increase of knowledge" --- so how do you propose to "just investigate" my claim to own a dragon?

Do please explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by foreveryoung, posted 03-20-2012 2:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 219 of 257 (656893)
03-22-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by foreveryoung
03-22-2012 1:54 AM


Re: Evidence
Fuck you. I have told you all for the upteenth time. That i am here to discuss ideas. I don't have the type of evidence you assholes are looking for. Go to hell if you don't like the topic I want to discuss.

Well, you know, if you start discussing an idea then one of the things people are going to want to discuss is "Is your idea true or false?" and "How do you know?" In fact, there hardly seems to be anything else one can discuss about an idea. I suppose one could ask: "Can you express it in rhyming couplets?" or "Is there an apt metaphor for your idea that involves anteaters?" but in the end what really interests people about ideas is their truth or falsehood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by foreveryoung, posted 03-22-2012 1:54 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 228 of 257 (656991)
03-24-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Jet Thomson
03-22-2012 2:59 AM


Re: Math anyone?
All you folks have is salt in a thumb smudged sack.

That's a funny way of saying "math and physics".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-22-2012 2:59 AM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Panda, posted 03-24-2012 2:42 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 234 of 257 (657011)
03-24-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jet Thomson
03-24-2012 2:42 PM


Re: The Moons of our Solar System
I am off to see what the big boys are saying about my ideas.

Then here are some words you may look forward to hearing in the near future: balderdash, baloney, bananas, blather, bombast, bull, bunkum, claptrap, drivel, garbage, gibberish, hogwash, hooey, hot air, mumbo jumbo, piffle, poppycock, rot, rubbish, tomfoolery, trash, tripe, and twaddle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jet Thomson, posted 03-24-2012 2:42 PM Jet Thomson has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020