|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of planets and solar systems...etc.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3732 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
It's not that it removes the identity which is important, it's the fact that it removes the word "muses". On face value the chap sitting having a think to himself is not hard evidence based on data. While he may be using hard evidence to come to this conclusion, we have no idea what that evidence is. No support is provided by him nor the author, no reference, nothing.
Are we to accept what he says based on who he is? That's really all we have to go on. The removal of "muses Scoville" changes the quote so that it can be presented as some sort of evidence when is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Are we to accept what he says based on who he is? That's really all we have to go on. The removal of "muses Scoville" changes the quote so that it can be presented as some sort of evidence when is not. No you aren't supposed to accept things based on who the person is. But a reader who didn't follow the footnotes wouldn't know who the person is. He would just be some anonymous scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, you have presented no evidence.
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence supportive of Special Creation? Do you7 have any evidence of the supposed Creator or Designer?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry Mike but logic is irrelevant to either truth, factuality or reality.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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. Your problem is that while there is evidence against particular parts of the detail of how planetary formation progresses none of this addresses the central evidence that leads to the conclusion that it accreted from a nebulous disc of matter. If you will permit me an analogy. Imagine you have arrived at the scene of a wrecked car. You observe the skid marks on the road, the damage to the car, the pieces scattered along the side of the road and the corresponding damage to the wall along one side of the road. From this data you conclude that the car crashed into the wall. 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. This is, of course, nonsense. That we're wrong about the driver having been drunk doesn't mean there wasn't a crash, it means we're wrong about the detail of the crash.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For example, if you predict transitional fossils, and you don't find them ... ... then you live in a fantasy world inside Mikey's head.
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. You forget that stuff you've made up doesn't falsify things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
jar writes: But you need to remember that this is an attempt to prove creationism by disproving biological evolution by disproving cosmic evolution. Yes, you have presented no evidence.Disproving cosmic evolution will disprove biological evolution because... they both have the word 'evolution' in their names. And disproving biological evolution will prove creationism because... there are only 2 possible options to the creation of life. Evidence is clearly not a requirement to someone that unfamiliar with logic or reality: made-up stuff is fine. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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 line2. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 did read it. I also thought about it. It is false. Specifically, your pretense that no transitional fossils have been found is false. This is, by the way, "information". Things do not stop being information just because you don't like to hear them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That is not analogous to what I say. Maybe not, but it is analogous to reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024