Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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 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

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 2 of 40 (642994)
12-03-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


This is gibberish.
What is your point?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 3 of 40 (642995)
12-03-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


yea cause there was an evolution of our planets, the word evolution describes the processes, that have undergone since the start of the formation of our solar system till now, very well . Change over a long period of time.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 4 of 40 (642997)
12-03-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


Same old problems Mike
Same two old problems Mike, you present no evidence and even if the current theories were wrong it adds no support for Special Creation.
Do you ever plan on presenting ANY evidence that supports Special Creation?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 11:58 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 5 of 40 (642998)
12-03-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


I see little reason to think that Creation Ministries are not quote-mining and lying due to their long history of quote-mining and lying.
I have better things to do than pick apart their lies.
If they ever manage to say something true it will be instantly buried under the mountains of bullshit that they have previously espoused.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 6 of 40 (643006)
12-03-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


You can tell they're lying just from looking at the article itself:
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.
They can't even lie properly, either through negligence or because they suppose that their target audience is so dumb they needn't bother.
As Jeff Hester, architect of the externally-driven hypothesis, explains:
There are two different sorts of environment where low-mass stars like the Sun form. In one kind of star-forming environment, you have a fairly quiescent process in which an undisturbed molecular cloud slowly collapses, forming a star here. a star there. The other type of environment in which Sun-like stars form is radically different.
So, Mikey, would you like to try again? This time, instead of the time-honored creationist method of snarf-and-barf, perhaps you could see if you could find something which is actually true, and not written by morons and/or liars. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 40 (643008)
12-03-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


Threshold questions
I'm willing to spend some time discussing this if we are actually going to have a scientific discussion. But before that begins, I'd like to point out a few problems that I see in the quoted material.
quote:
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.
That strikes me as a rather silly thing to attempt. Bodes law is nothing more than a mnemonic device for remembering the distances of planets (and not their masses), and in fact application of the law requires munging around with almost as many parameters as there are planets. While we can forgive the fact that the rule,does not work for Pluto, the "law" doesn't even predict the existence of Neptune.
quote:
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.
I note that quoted section does not say that there is no evidence, only that there is no unambiguous evidence. The evidence we could obtain for such a thing would be very circumstantial. We cannot "see" hydrogen do much of anything. These statements reminds me of another poster's claim that despite the passage of 13.7 Billion years, no evidence of extra-solar life has ever been obtained.
quote:
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
This statement to be facially dubious. I don't think the claim in the statement will survive even the most cursory of research. Yes it has been theorized that supernova can trigger the collapse of molecular clouds, but I think the idea that there is no viable theory for the formation of the first stars from clouds of gas is inane.
quote:
Why clouds don’t collapse on their own is still a ‘great mystery’.
This statement as presented is ridiculous. If clouds could collapse on their own, there would be no need for a mechanism to explain stars. I'm very suspicious of the ellipsis dots here.
I'm going to observe this thread for a bit. I understand that mike the wiz is convinced, but I don't trust his ability to do a critical reading of the material he finds on CMI's web page.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2011 9:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 12 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 7:18 AM NoNukes has replied

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


(3)
Message 8 of 40 (643014)
12-03-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
12-03-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Threshold questions
This statement as presented is ridiculous. If clouds could collapse on their own, there would be no need for a mechanism to explain stars. I'm very suspicious of the ellipsis dots here.
The article as a whole contains nineteen ellipses and fifteen quotations that start in the middle of a sentence. While lesser creationists cherry-pick paragraphs and sentences, these guys are cherry-picking clauses --- and they still have to lie about the meaning of the quotations they produce by this butchery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2011 7:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2011 9:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 9 of 40 (643017)
12-03-2011 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2011 9:27 PM


Re: Threshold questions
The article as a whole contains nineteen ellipses and fifteen quotations that start in the middle of a sentence. While lesser creationists cherry-pick paragraphs and sentences, these guys are cherry-picking clauses --- and they still have to lie about the meaning of the quotations they produce by this butchery.
When it comes to science, creationists have to lie. Science not only doesn't agree with their beliefs, it directly contradicts them.
In order to live with themselves they have to start with self-delusion and then try to get everyone else to buy into their fantasies. If that requires them to distort, misrepresent, or ignore scientific evidence then that's a minor problem--they know their beliefs are correct, so what's the difference?
What the creationist websites do is just apologetics, and has no relation to science whatever. They aren't even qualified to address science, as their beliefs and approach are diametrically opposed to both the scientific method and the results of scientific research.
Doesn't stop them of course.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2011 9:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2011 10:24 PM Coyote has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 40 (643026)
12-03-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
12-03-2011 9:37 PM


Re: Threshold questions
What the creationist websites do is just apologetics, and has no relation to science whatever.
Apologetics is not supposed to be a bad word. Apologetics means logic based defenses of theology, although those defenses need not be science based. Many true apologetics arguments do contain flaws and bad science, but lying and distortion and slanted truth is not traditional apologetics.
In particular, quote-mining isn't apologetics. Quote mining is lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2011 9:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2011 10:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 40 (643027)
12-03-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NoNukes
12-03-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Apologists and other liars
Apologetics is not supposed to be a bad word. Apologetics means logic based defenses of theology, although those defenses need not be science based. Many true apologetics arguments do contain flaws and bad science, but lying and distortion and slanted truth is not traditional apologetics.
In particular, quote-mining isn't apologetics. Quote mining is lying.
From Wiki: Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of reason. So in this you are correct.
However, what the creationist websites present is a modern, and significantly different, version of apologetics: it involves all sorts of misrepresentations, quote-mines, willful ignorance, and outright lies. The goal is to reinforce religious beliefs at all costs, and to spread those beliefs to those who can't spot the lies. There is no regard for scientific accuracy. The only goal is to gloss over, misrepresent, or flat out lie about those things that contradict their religious beliefs.
I realize this is a bit off topic, but this is what I've seen in a lot of creationist websites. Radiocarbon dating is one of my fields, and what they dredge up to try to discredit radiocarbon dating is simply amazing. It has taught me to distrust anything they publish.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2011 10:24 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 12 of 40 (643045)
12-04-2011 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
12-03-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Threshold questions
I got bored today do deided to hunt down the quote
Why clouds don’t collapse on their own is still a ‘great mystery’.
The quote originally comes from this site
Accretion hypothesis - creation.com
The full phrase which is bounded by quotation marks is
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’.50
50 refers to the reference the quote is obtained from. Reference 50 is given as Edelson, ref. 44, p. 12. Reference 44 is given as Edelson, E., Astrochemistry comes of age, Mosaic 10(1):9—14, 1979; p. 13.
So I found the full reference 44 online,
Forbidden
On page 12 it says
[qs]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, muses
Scoville, is still "a great mystery."
Scoville is Nicholas Scoville of University of Massachusetts. There is no reference given for this quote from Scoville in Edelson's article. Edelson was a science journalist in the1970s.
I haven't checked out any of the other quotes which contain ellipses cos I'm no longer bored, but it passed an entertaining 10 minutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2011 7:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 12-04-2011 7:31 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2011 8:55 AM Trixie has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 13 of 40 (643046)
12-04-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Trixie
12-04-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Threshold questions
A science journalists from the 70s.
What more conclusive evidence do you need?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 7:18 AM Trixie has not replied

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


(4)
Message 14 of 40 (643048)
12-04-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 4:18 PM


Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation
My current bedtime reading is a book called Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, it was written by a Christian in 1844. The copy I have is an 1887 reprint with a forward by another Christian. It describes an early version of the theory that the solar system formed by the accretion of matter from a disk formed from nebulae.
This raises two questions that I put to you:
1. Why do think that a Christian in the middle of the 19th century (writing 15 years before Darwin published his Origin) would be putting forward these ideas if they're such an exercise in mental gymnastics for modern evolutionists?
2. That 19th century science had already figured out that planets formed from such discs, and that such a theory has held (with modification) for over 167 years suggests to me that the evidence that the solar system passed through such a stage is (a) readily accessible and (b) pretty overwhelming. How do you explain the long survival of this theory? Why do you think that modern difficulties with the details should take precedence over the body of observation that suggests the bigger picture.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Corrected a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 4:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 12:08 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 40 (643050)
12-04-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Trixie
12-04-2011 7:18 AM


Re: Threshold questions
Interesting. So the ellipsis dots merely remove the identity of the speaker. I don't find this removal to be of any particular consequence. After all, Henry did provide footnotes. We get to reach our own conclusion about whether a 30+ year old expression of mystery is important.
Still waiting for some comment from the OP...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 7:18 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 9:28 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024