Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
24 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Theodoric (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What got into Hoyle?
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 38 (398743)
05-02-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
05-02-2007 6:48 AM


Re: The Reasons....
I was saying something a little bit different. It wasn't the ideas he pursued but the way he pursued them, i.e., with questionable scientific judgement. What happened to the mind of the man who figured out where all the elements in the universe beyond lithium came from? Did he experience some mental decline or disease?

Hmmmmm? :confused:

Then I guess I'm not familiar with this. Can you expound on this, perhaps by providing some of his works, where we can compare and contrast older works from the new?


"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-02-2007 6:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-02-2007 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 38 by ChrisS, posted 05-03-2007 2:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 38 (398748)
05-02-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 12:47 PM


Re: The Reasons....
Hoyle's ideas about steady state theory, abiogenesis and Archaeopteryx have already been described in this thread. The Wikipedia entry on Hoyle offers a pretty good summary. But realize that creationists will tend to interpret his later ideas in a positive light. This is because they'll, for instance, approve of challenging the authenticity of the Archaeopteryx fossils and ignore the shabby scientific grounds upon which Hoyle based his challenge.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 12:47 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 5:38 PM Percy has responded
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2007 5:46 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 38 (398803)
05-02-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-02-2007 1:01 PM


Re: The Reasons....
Hoyle's ideas about steady state theory, abiogenesis and Archaeopteryx have already been described in this thread. The Wikipedia entry on Hoyle offers a pretty good summary. But realize that creationists will tend to interpret his later ideas in a positive light. This is because they'll, for instance, approve of challenging the authenticity of the Archaeopteryx fossils and ignore the shabby scientific grounds upon which Hoyle based his challenge.

I'm not familiar with Hoyle's Archaeopteryx argument, so I cannot currently defend or criticize it. If you have any information on it, I would like to read up on it though.

As far as creationists lauding Hoyle, it seems like an odd fit. I mean, Hoyle was an atheist and an indirect panspermist. That's not exactly a match made in heaven-- no pun intended. But it seems that as long as someone will defy evolution and the big bang, many YEC's will gladly support their points.

Which is another thing. I've never really understood why YEC's have a problem with the BB. I mean, Hoyle was repulsed by the notion that the universe had a beginning at the singularity. And creationists say that the universe had a definite beginning. So why the controversy? I've never understood that.


"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-02-2007 1:01 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 05-02-2007 6:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 34 of 38 (398804)
05-02-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
05-02-2007 1:01 PM


Re: The Reasons....
This is because they'll, for instance, approve of challenging the authenticity of the Archaeopteryx fossils and ignore the shabby scientific grounds upon which Hoyle based his challenge.

They also seem to ignore his statement, somehow connected with the Arkansas school creationist lawsuit, that a person was delusional if they thought the universe was less than billions of years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 05-02-2007 1:01 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2007 5:57 PM Coragyps has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15439
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 35 of 38 (398805)
05-02-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
05-02-2007 5:46 PM


Re: The Reasons....
That was Wickmarasingh rather than Hoyle himself.

But it's absolutely typical fundamentlist behaviour. If an "authority" says something they like it gets trumpeted. If the same person says something they dislike it gets ignored (at best).

Fundamentalists are often far more interested in propping up their own beliefs than in any sort of consistency or rationality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2007 5:46 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2007 6:19 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 36 of 38 (398806)
05-02-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 5:38 PM


Re: The Reasons....
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

I'm not familiar with Hoyle's Archaeopteryx argument, so I cannot currently defend or criticize it. If you have any information on it, I would like to read up on it though.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Authenticity.

As far as creationists lauding Hoyle, it seems like an odd fit. I mean, Hoyle was an atheist and an indirect panspermist. That's not exactly a match made in heaven-- no pun intended. But it seems that as long as someone will defy evolution and the big bang, many YEC's will gladly support their points.

Uh, yes. Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" quote is repeated by YEC's all the time. And that's my question: How could someone as brilliant as Hoyle come to the point where he could make such ignorant statements? What happened?

Which is another thing. I've never really understood why YEC's have a problem with the BB.

Because a 13.7 billion year age for the universe is part of BB theory.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 5:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 38 (398808)
05-02-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
05-02-2007 5:57 PM


Re: The Reasons....
That was Wickmarasingh rather than Hoyle himself.

All I can find at the moment is what Wick said on the witness stand in [i]Epperson vs. Arkansas:

Q. Could any rational scientist believe that the earth's geology can be explained by a single catastrophe?
A. No.

Q. Could any rational scientist believe that the earth is less than one million years old?
A. No.


quoted here

But I had a quote once.....on a now-defunct computer, of course, that I remember as being from a book H&W coauthored. Oh well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2007 5:57 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
ChrisS
Junior Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 5
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 38 of 38 (398927)
05-03-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 12:47 PM


Re: The Reasons....
Then I guess I'm not familiar with this. Can you expound on this, perhaps by providing some of his works, where we can compare and contrast older works from the new?

If you can get to a university library, nj, a good start would be the famous B2FH paper (the "H" is for Hoyle) titled "Synthesis of Elements in Stars" in Reviews of Moden Physics,29,547(1957). In this Hoyle and his co-authors explain where all those elements were formed and why they appear in the abundance that they do. Its amazing stuff but pretty difficult for the layman. Even though there was much of it that I could not fully understand - I am an engineer after all - I could recognise the power of the paper's argument and would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of the title. I doubt there is a later paper to compare and contrast it with, as Hoyle's contentious work was in different fields.

Regards
Chris Smith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 12:47 PM Hyroglyphx 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 © 2019