Sunday, November 25, 2012

Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution

Evolutionary thought holds that the universe, the quasars, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets and moons (oh and all of biology too) arose spontaneously by chance events and natural law. How that occurred is uncertain and under scientific investigation. That it occurred is not uncertain, it is a fact. These two different departments of evolutionary thought are disjoint. The fact of evolution does not derive from the particular theories of how it could have happened. It must be that way because there is substantial uncertainty of how it could have happened. Theories of the Solar system evolution, for instance, fall into two broad categories. In the monistic theories, the planets and Sun arise from the same process, such as in Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis. In dualistic theories, the planets and Sun arise from different processes, such as in Buffon's comet theory. These two rival classes of explanation have competed for centuries and as historian Stephen Brush has observed, the time scale for reversing between these two types of explanation has grown shorter and shorter as we approach the present. Hence the origin of the solar system, says Brush, is an unsolved problem. [1]

This week’s Science magazine provides yet another example of this phenomenon of a multiplicity of explanations in another one of professor Brush’s areas of interest: the evolution of the Earth-Moon system. It is another example of a problem that has required ever increasing complexity of explanation to account for the evidence. Science has two papers on the evolution of the Earth-Moon system, one calling for a larger impactor than usual and a subsequent resonance with the Sun, and the other calling for a faster spinning proto Earth and subsequent resonance between the Sun and Moon. As the perspective explains, the two papers “offer differing solutions to the problem.” Fortunately the fact of evolution does not depend of the science of evolution.


1. Stephen G. Brush, Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and the Core of the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 4.

109 comments:

  1. The "evolution" of the Earth-Moon system is a fascinating topic, I agree, but it has nothing to do with biology. It is a question in astrophysics and cosmology. Conflating two different usages of the term "evolution" can only lead to confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder why Hunter would even touch the subject. Is he pandering to young-earth creationists? I don't think anybody else would express doubts about the origin of the solar system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone should express doubts over the origin of the solar system via cosmic collisions. There just isn't any way to objectively test it.

      Delete
  3. I would guess the point here is simply that the same type of 'bottom-up' approach runs into the same type of difficulties re biological, and solar system, evolution. The general point might be, then, that our current explanatory paradigm is not up to the task and a new one perhaps needs to be looked at. One that can, eg, do justice to what we see all around us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what would be that new paradigm, in the case of the solar system? I am quite curious to hear that. I might even tell my astro colleagues tomorrow.

      Delete
    2. I guess it would be the one they come up with once science gets beyond infancy. They'll be delighted to hear this, btw, because as we all know, there's nothing scientists like better than realising how little they know.

      Delete
    3. Your answer seems to be rather, well, infantile. Science has matured long ago.

      Delete
    4. Be that as it may, Luther, it looks like you are not proposing any alternative framework to the existing scientific approaches. Can't say that I am surprised.

      Delete
    5. Well, your answer seems to be overstating the case on a grand scale when one considers, eg: we only have a name (and nothing else) for what we now think makes up the vast bulk of the universe; we have no explanation for how life arose; we can't even describe living systems; and we don't even know how to begin to think about consciousness.

      Delete
    6. That's a pretty naive approach, Luther. Science has learned a great many things.

      Just to name a few, we understand exquisitely well the motion of physical objects, from the microscopic scale (quarks, nucleons, and atoms) to the galactic scale (planets and stars). We also understand very well the nature of chemical and nuclear reactions, including those fueling the Sun. Electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational forces are pretty well understood. So are mechanical properties of solids and fluids. Solid-state electronics is what allows you to blather on the internet unencumbered by any of the knowledge that undergirds it (that's quantum mechanics).

      And that's just physics. I did not even mention the grand successes in chemistry or biology. At any rate, the body of accumulated scientific knowledge is vast and belittling it as you just did is plain silly.

      Of course, as scientific knowledge expands, so does its boundary. The more we know, the more questions we will ask. Pointing to that boundary while ignoring the bulk is a lie by omission. Think that through, my friend.

      Delete
    7. Science has allowed us to learn. But what we have learned has nothing to do with materialism. Materialism cannot explain the electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational forces. Nor can it explain solids and fluids.

      Delete
  4. I never said science hadn't learned anything. I said science was still in it's infancy. And that's surely true. I mean, if you think what we know now (after only a few hundred years) compared to what we might know in, say, 10,000 years, then what other word can one use. And so nobody is belittling anything. Just pointing out that your claims of maturity are a touch premature. Think that through, your friend.

    And spare us the 'if you don't worship us we'll take away your computer' spiel, it makes you sound as if you have no knowledge of the philosophy that led to its invention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be coy, Luther. You compared science to an infant. An infant of course knows nothing and is totally helpless. Science isn't exactly like that.

      Delete
    2. I said science was in its infancy and I stand by that. Perhaps the word has a different meaning in the UK and US - here it means up to about 7 (eg, infant school 4-7 year olds). That seems about right to me.

      Delete
    3. Here is how infancy is defined in Encyclopedia Britannica: the period of life between birth and the acquisition of language approximately one to two years later. That's the definition I go by.

      Delete
    4. The origin of the word infant is also quite illuminating. It means, in Latin, unable to speak.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, but it also means children up to 7 as demonstrated by the existence of infant schools. Not that it matters much, since the sense in which I was using the word was not referring to children, but instead to an early stage of existence or development of some enterprise, in this case science. And this is a perfectly legitimate sense of the word I think you'll find should you consult a dictionary.

      Delete
    6. As for the origin of the word - so what? The fact is that saying such and such a thing is still in its infancy is a perfectly legitimate way of putting things. It is in that sense, then, that I used the word. If your English is not up to it then that's your problem.

      Delete
    7. I don't think you can defend your characterization. Infancy in the sense you use means an early stage in the development of something. A stage at which an enterprise is unable to deliver any results yet. Here is how one dictionary defines infancy in the two senses:

      1. the state or period of being an infant; very early childhood, usually the period before being able to walk; babyhood.
      2. the corresponding period in the existence of anything;

      (emphasis mine)

      Science, taken as a whole, is not in a state of infancy. It is not only learning stuff as infants do. It has been producing very tangible results. Space flight. Computers. MRI.

      Delete
    8. I stand by what I said. Science is certainly a lot closer to infancy than it is to maturity as you farcically believe. Care to consult the dictionary there? Fully developed? Hardly, as the examples I gave above clearly show.

      Delete
    9. You don't seem to understand what maturity means. It means a fully productive stage, not a stage at which there is nothing left to do and one can retire.

      Delete
    10. No, I understand full well what maturity means, that's how I know your claim that science is mature is farcical. As the examples I gave above clearly show.

      Delete
    11. You don't. You seem to think that science must have answered every question to be pronounced mature. If that ever happens science will be retired. That's not maturity.

      Maturity is when an enterprise can point to many spectacular achievements (see here) and continues to produce them. That's the stage science is at.

      You wrote initially something truly hilarious: "The general point might be, then, that our current explanatory paradigm is not up to the task and a new one perhaps needs to be looked at. One that can, eg, do justice to what we see all around us."

      Let's look at something around us. How about the Sun? Can science not do justice to our star? Of course it can. We have a remarkably complete understanding of the Sun's interior structure, its life cycle, the nuclear reactions in its core, its place in the galaxy etc.

      It's asinine to claim that science can't do justice to "what we see all around us." Just plain foolish.

      Delete
    12. No, I don't think science has to have answered everything to be mature. I think, though, that science has to have something more than just a name for the vast bulk of the universe. That is, science cannot be considered mature while the bulk of what exists at the brute physical level is still shrouded in total mystery.

      And no, maturity is not when you can point to many spectacular achievements. Maturity is when something is fully developed. In science, that won't be until it has at least a clue what makes up the bulk of the universe at the brute physical level - its specialist area btw.

      And it's asinine to claim that science can do justice to anything like all of what is all around us. Take, for example, me typing these words. How is that done science? Not a clue is the answer. Not even the beginnings of a clue about what a clue might look like. And shutting your eyes to such things and hoping they'll go away is what is asinine, and infantile, dare I say.

      Delete
    13. Luther, science also has no clue why you have been picking your nose for the last hour, and that's OK. That's not a particularly interesting question for anyone, aside perhaps from your mum.

      But seriously, you keep harping about us not having "something more than just a name for the vast bulk of the universe." That's simply wrong. In fact, we have some idea about what dark matter (to take one part of the missing universe) is. Dark matter is matter, as the name suggest, not some illusion created by our misunderstanding of gravity. I am talking here about one popular alternative of dark matter. We know, furthermore, that it is made of particles and that the particles are most likely cold. And we now have some indirect observational evidence consistent with these theoretical constructions.

      It is also important to realize that the puzzle of dark matter is not that old: the first signs of the missing mass were found in 1932. 80 years is not too much time for a scientific puzzle. I'll let you find out on your own how long it took physicists to understand the phenomenon of superconductivity for comparison. Or how long it took them to figure out what makes the sun shine.

      So, yes, we do have a clue about what makes up the bulk of the universe. It's you who doesn't.

      Delete
    14. Re your first point, I take that such nonsense demonstrates you understand the point but choose not to engage it.

      Re dark matter - it's not even completely agreed yet that it exists. Again, then, you overstate the case.

      So, one issue avoided, another deceptively answered, and then a plea to be given 100s of years to deal with a very basic issue in the scheme of things. That doesn't sound fully developed to me. And these are only a few examples.

      Delete
    15. What point? "me typing these words?" I have no clue what you meant by that.

      It's true that we don't have a fully fleshed theory of dark matter, but I wasn't claiming that. My claim was that, contrary to your assertion, we do have some clues about dark matter beyond the mere name. I pointed out what else we know about dark matter. There is strong consensus that it exists, particularly after the observations of the Bullet Cluster. That isn't an overstatement. It's how mainstream astrophysicists view the situation.

      As to how long it should take to resolve scientific puzzles, your opinion hardly matters. I asked you how long it took to solve the problems of superconductivity and stellar processes. You chose not to reply. Here is the answer to the first one: about fifty years. That is a typical time scale. Look up how long it took to understand the atomic structure. Then take a number and wait.

      Delete
    16. You don't understand what "me typing these words" means. You don't understand that the central processes involved in that are a profound mystery. Time to inform yourself then.

      And I pointed out that it is not even universally agreed that dark matter exists. This is a touch problematic if you want to claim you have any reasonable idea what it is.

      And the reason it took science so long is because it was not mature at the time. And the reason it takes science so long to answer these basic questions now is because it is not mature now. It is still developing.

      Delete
    17. Or maybe you should try to express yourself better, Luther, and then your words won't be a profound mystery for others like me. :)

      It's not universally agreed that superconductivity is due to a condensation of Copper pairs. There is a guy out in La Jolla (the author of the famed h-index) who thinks otherwise. Does it mean we don't understand superconductivity? It doesn't. The science of condensed matter is mature.

      The reason it took us 50 years to figure out how superconductivity arises is because that was a hard problem. We nonetheless tackled it. There is no reason to expect that science of the future will be able to crack any problem in a year.

      Delete
    18. Ok, I admit it. When I said "me typing these words" and meant "me typing these words" I should have been much clearer by, perhaps, using the phrase "me typing these words". Still no engagement with the point I see. Just obfuscation.

      And maybe the science of condensed matter is mature. But science as a whole isn't. It's still in it's infancy. And it's not just one guy on dark matter - again you attempt to deceive. Tut tut.

      And superconductivity may be a hard problem for a science in its infancy but for a mature science with a reasonably full grasp of how stuff works it would be childsplay.

      Delete
    19. You've tried, Luther, and I can give you a D for your efforts on "me typing these words". Better luck next time.

      As to superconductivity being an easy problem for "mature science," I'd like to get some further explanation from you. You have agreed that condensed matter is a mature science but you insist that if science overall were more mature, we'd crack the problem in no time. I don't exactly see how that could happen, so here's your chance to enlighten me.

      My counter argument is pretty simple. To a large degree, subfields of science are autonomous. Developments in molecular biology have no impact on physics on condensed matter and vice versa. So I see no reason to agree with you that having a better developed science overall would lead to a faster solution of the superconductivity problem.

      So go ahead, explain how additional developments in chemistry, evolutionary biology, or particle physics would speed up the solution of the superconductivity puzzle. I don't think you can argue that.

      If that's not exactly what you had in mind, explain what you did have in mind.

      Delete
    20. And developments in molecular biology and physics have nothing to do with materialism.

      Materialism is what is keeping science in its infancy...

      Delete
    21. Joe G

      Materialism is what is keeping science in its infancy...


      Yeah Joe, tell us about reincarnation and the mystical energy focusing power of the pyramids!

      Were those front-loaded by the Intelligent Designer as part of the master internal genetic algorithm?

      All science so far!

      Delete
    22. If you, Oleg, don't understand why there's a scientific problem with accounting for how the words I am typing came to be typed then that's you problem. It's not a failure on my part. You therefore get an E for general intelligence.

      Delete
    23. I don't know whether there is a scientific problem with the words you type, Luther, but there clearly is a communication problem. One of us, or perhaps both, is at fault.

      Anyway, feel free to explain how a more mature science overall would crack the superconductivity problem faster. ANd type carefully, please.

      Delete
    24. Materialism is what is keeping science in its infancy...

      thorton:
      Yeah Joe, tell us about reincarnation and the mystical energy focusing power of the pyramids!

      There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has. And I understand that bothers you.

      And you still have no idea what science is.

      Delete
    25. I know you don't know if there's a scientific problem in accounting for, eg, people typing words. That's because you have kept yourself in ignorance.

      And a mature science wouldn't take the best part of 100 years to solve a problem like that because a mature science, by definition, would have a sound grasp of the basic physical properties of stuff.

      Delete
    26. And oleg knows quite a bit about making random noises- unfortunately he doesn't know anything about staying on-topic nor addressing the issues nor nested hierarchies nor cladistics.

      Delete
    27. I've not stepped in anything. My point is that superconductivity is one of the basic physical properties of stuff. And taking nearly a hundred years to work things out like that is not a sign of maturity but a sign that very basic questions that still cause us grief.

      So here's another basic question, how can part of the universe be about another part of the the universe?

      Delete
    28. Joe G

      There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has.


      Tell us more about these pyramid antennas Joe. Do they transmit too or just receive? What type of energy/signal do they use? AFAIK rough limestone blocks don't have very good properties for shaping electromagnetic radiation. More importantly, who are they receiving the signals from?

      Delete
    29. Yes thorton, I understand that you are upset because your position is unsupported and useless.

      Do you really think that acting like an infant helps your position? Really?

      Delete
    30. But Joe, you're the one who told us pyramids are antennas and were made of something besides limestone blocks.

      I understand you were just making up stuff again, but why mention it if you can't back it up?

      Delete
    31. Luther: My point is that superconductivity is one of the basic physical properties of stuff. And taking nearly a hundred years to work things out like that is not a sign of maturity but a sign that very basic questions that still cause us grief.

      What you say is complete nonsense. Superconductivity is not a "one of the basic physical properties of stuff." An example of a basic property of stuff would be density, atomic weight or color. Every substance has them. Not every substance can be a superconductor. Superconductivity is a nontrvial emergent property of electrons in some solids.

      And be that as it may, you have not explained how progress in other fields of science, rather than in condensed matter physics (a mature field, hey), would speed up the resolution of this puzzle. Care to try? I don't think you're up to the task.

      Luther: So here's another basic question, how can part of the universe be about another part of the the universe?

      You're not making any sense here, Luther. Your fingers are getting ahead of your brain.

      Delete
    32. thorton:
      But Joe, you're the one who told us pyramids are antennas and were made of something besides limestone blocks.

      Granite is used in the interior of all 3 pyramids on the Giza plateau. And some type of white plaster made the pyramids smooth.

      Also many people before me have said that pyramids are antennas.

      And why be a materialist if you can't back it up? Why believe in evolutionism if you can't back it up?

      Delete
    33. And the pyramids had a golden cap on their tip.

      Delete
    34. Joe G

      Granite is used in the interior of all 3 pyramids on the Giza plateau. And some type of white plaster made the pyramids smooth.


      Granite and plaster aren't good reflectors of electromagnetic radiation either Joe. Plus the shape of the pyramid is all wrong to act as a focusing reflector. Don't you know anything at all about antennas?

      Also many people before me have said that pyramids are antennas

      Who said that Joe? Where can I read about the scientific evidence that the pyramids are actually big antennas? What frequency do they operate at? What modulated signaling do they use? WHO is sending/receving the transmissions?

      You sure are a gullible one.

      Delete
    35. Joe G

      WHETHER THE PYRAMID OF CHEOPS COULD SERVE FOR COMMUNICATION WITH SPACE?

      and Karel Drbal, a Czechoslovakian engineer and pyramidologist, described the pyramid as "a kind of cosmic antenna, tuning into sources of energy of vaster intensity and then focusing it into its centre."


      Sorry Mr. Gullible, I asked for scientific evidence. Not a woo woo web article by a certified pyramidologist loony.

      What 'energy' got tuned Joe, and what produced it?

      What frequency range does the antenna operate?

      WHO was being communicated with?

      BTW I forgot more about antenaas then you will ever know, and I don't forget...

      Good. Then you should have no problems coming up with the link budget for this particular 'antenna' in its communication usage.

      Show us you understand antennas Mr. "I don't forget". Let's see the calculations.

      Delete
    36. Umm you have no idea what scientific evidence is and you did NOT ask for any. And your position doesn't have any. All you have is random noise from evo-loonies.

      And if you want me to do any work, then you need to pay me. I don't have anything to prove to a pathological liar, loser and internet crybaby such as yourself.

      But anyway:

      One theory poses that the pyramid actually lies over important magnetic ley lines that traverse and crisscross the globe at certain points, points that the great pyramids of Giza rest upon. A biological engineer named John Burke argues that the movement of underground water in limestone aquifers below monuments produces an electric current via friction and the rich magnetic dolomite content of the stone.

      For example, Burke measured positive ground current at Silbury hill in England, an ancient pyramidal mound composed of chalk and clay that lies on top of such limestone bedrock riddled with zig zagging aquifers filled with rainwater. Such tunnels and water caverns lie beneath the Giza plateau as well. Abd’El Hakim Awyan, a native Egyptian archaeologist and latter day sufist, attests to swimming in such tunnels during his youth on the Giza plateau.

      Interestingly, Nikola Tesla used the natural conductivity of such limestone aquifers to generate electrical power. The inventor also built inclined underground passages into the aquifer to channel water. Such passages appear very similar to the ones found beneath the great pyramids, which may have served a related purpose. The power ran up the ground into the tesla coil tower above, which in theory channeled wirelessly transmitted power over great distance. However, since Telsa wanted the distribution of the energy to be universally free, the inventor’s Industrial sponsor, capitalist tycoon J.P. Morgan did not fund the scientist’s machine, instead choosing Edison’s monopolized and commercialized wire network.


      http://alternativearchaeology.jigsy.com/the-great-pyramids-at-giza

      Delete
    37. I am making sense about aboutness - ie, how come some of the universe can be about another part of the universe. You're just too ignorant to understand that the problem here is with your basic lack of knowledge and not anything to do with me. Go look it up. The technical term is intentionality, the basic term is aboutness.

      And yes superconductivity is a basic physical property in the sense I was using these words. That is, it's just a property some materials have. But choose whatever terms you like if my terms offend you - the point is exactly the same.

      Delete
    38. Aboutness, my friend Luther, is a term in philosophy of mind, which is not science and something close to navel gazing, albeit sophisticated. Aboutness, qualia, and the rest of its terms are useless in science. Philosophy of mind has been brain-dead for a while. Neuroscience supplanted it just like physics supplanted natural philosophy back then.

      As to superconductivity, I have asked you several times already how advances in sciences outside of condensed matter could speed up the understanding of this phenomenon. You have repeated that it would but not explained how. You just have no clue.

      Delete
    39. It's a term from philosophy of mind perhaps, but the phenomenon is real enough. For example, when you said it was not science, your words were actually about science. That is, your words/thoughts (part of the universe) were about science (another part of the universe. How does the mighty neuroscience account for this? Or are you one of these crackpots who thinks people don't really have thoughts about things?

      Re superconductivity - the point is irrelevant, the fact that it took your science 50 plus years to get to grips with such a simple physical phenomenon shows that science is still in its infancy. That's all my point was and that point is proven.

      Delete
    40. And the reason aboutness or qualia or useless in science, is because in terms of the mind, science is not yet even in its infancy! Not even conceived. So all you're left with is a 500 year old (many times falsified) ideology and the look of a petulant child.

      Delete
    41. Oh, wow! Superconductivity is "such a simple physical phenomenon!" If that's the case, why don't you explain, in a paragraph or two, how electrons are able to stage a perfect flow without any loss of energy through "a mile of dirty lead wire," as one physicist put it.

      As to qualia, I can play this game. Qualia are not a "real phenomenon," they are a term in philosophy of mind. No more and no less. Science does not have to account for it any more than it has to account for phlogiston, which was also once thought to be a real fluid. It's not. Philosophy of mind just isn't up to the task and terms invented by its practitioners are no more useful than terms used in psychoanalysis.

      Delete
    42. Superconductivity is a basic physical phenomenon. Any mature science would have had that wrapped up thousands of years ago.

      Science has to account for the painfulness of pain, or the redness we experience when we see red things. So call these whatever you will, crying like a baby won't make them go away.

      And anyway, the point was about aboutness, which, presuming you want to say science is actually about stuff, you are likewise going to have to account for. So dry yer eyes and get cracking.

      Delete
    43. Luther, the words that come out of your mouth are devoid of meaning. You can't even define what you mean when you say "superconductivity is a basic physical phenomenon."

      Delete
    44. No, all the words that come out of my mouth (are typed by me) have meaning (something for which there is no scientific account yet - science still being in its infancy and all that). And I already defined it above. Call it whatever you will, it doesn't become more or less complex just by giving it a fancy name. Simple stuff, ask any scientist in 7000 years time.

      Delete
    45. Superconductivity simple stuff? Care to explain it in a paragraph or two. You can't. I can't. And that means something.

      Delete
    46. It is simple stuff in the scheme of things. And anyway, science can know nothing about superconductivity according to you, because there is no phenomenon of aboutness in your loony-tunes universe. Thus science knows nothing about anything according to you - talk about being in its infancy - sheesh! NEXT!

      Delete
    47. Aboutness is no more a phenomenon than phlogiston is. Both are stillborn attempts at understanding something.

      Phlogiston was retired long ago when scientists figured out the right way to think about thermal energy exchange.

      Aboutness is still bandied about by philosophers of mind, who are at this point entirely irrelevant.

      Delete
    48. Heh. Superconductivity is no longer simple stuff, period, it is simple stuff "in the grand scheme of things."

      Oh well, I can claim with equal authority that human brain is simple "in the grand scheme of things." Try to refute that. You can't. It's a meaningless proposition just like yours.

      Delete
    49. But if aboutness doesn't exist then "superconductivity" can't be about superconductivity. Thus there is nothing for science to explain. Make your mind up. Is science actually about the stuff scientists claim it is about or isn't it? And if it is, how do you explain the relationship between the thoughts of scientists and the stuff those thoughts are, dare I say it, about.

      And, except for lots of brains working together, eg, in society, the human brain is the most complex thing we know of. Mindbogglingly more complex than some basic physical property of matter that it took 50 plus years to get a grip on.

      Delete
    50. You know, Luther, all these philosophical masturbations about aboutness are surely pleasurable, but they add nothing to the human knowledge. You can argue with yourself whether science has something to explain about superconductivity, but the bottom line is your musings are utterly irrelevant.

      Superconductivity was an interesting and very challenging puzzle for physicists. It was understood after some fifty years of hard work. Several Nobel prizes marked these important efforts. The understanding of superconductivity and the associated Meissner effect inspired particle physicists to come up with the idea of the Higgs field, which now undergirds much of particle physics.

      All of this is white noise to you. It's your free choice to stay in a dead end of philosophy. It lost relevance a while ago and it isn't getting it back any time soon.

      Delete
    51. Geez oleg, materialism and evolutionism add nothing to the human knowledge and are basically irrelevant musings.

      Delete
    52. Luther, you don't know much about me, so don't try to guess whether I know something or not. In this case, you are plainly wrong.

      Anyways, I laugh when people suggest that whatever vague BS they peddle is bothering me. I don't care much about philosophy of mind, which lost its relevance long ago. And I pity people who don't understand and can't appreciate scientific achievements. They may know fancy philosophical terms, but at the end of the day these terms get them nowhere. Of course it is mental masturbation. Great satisfaction, totally fruitless. And most importantly, anyone can engage in it. Doing science, not so.

      Delete
    53. I appreciate scientific achievements just fine. I just don't see the point in pretending we know vastly more than we do. And as for anyone being able to do philosophy, of course they can. Anyone can do science too. Just like anyone can play football. The question is, can they do these things well? And in your case the answer is no to all three.

      And as for philosophy being useless, about that computer you're using...

      Delete
    54. oleg:
      And I pity people who don't understand and can't appreciate scientific achievements.

      And we pity the fools who think that materialism and evolutionism have made any scientific achievements.

      Delete
    55. thorton,

      You don't know what scientific evidence is.

      Also all I said that has your little panties in a knot is that there is more evidence for pyramids being antennas then there is for your position.:

      Joe GNovember 26, 2012 8:26 AM
      Materialism is what is keeping science in its infancy...

      thorton:
      Yeah Joe, tell us about reincarnation and the mystical energy focusing power of the pyramids!

      There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has. And I understand that bothers you.

      And you still have no idea what science is.

      And then, as predicted, you went all belligerent because that is all you have.

      People can see that out of the blue you brought up pyramids and reincarnation. People can also see what I said and how you responded. And people can also see that, like the coward you are, you never even attempted to support your position.

      You are the epitome of white trash. Congrats on your advancement.

      Delete
    56. What lies, liar? Your pathetic attempt to try to hide the fact that your position has nothing has been exposed.

      And obviously you are embarrassed by your position's lack of supporting evidence.

      The Pyramidal Electric Transducer:
      A DC to RF Converter for the Capture of
      Atmospheric Electrostatic Energy


      Which is just a waste of time because thorton cannot grasp any of it. And it is more than his position has.

      Delete
    57. Here tin foil hat Joe, here's some more woo that's right up your alley!

      Our Earth Is Hollow!

      That wackaloon thinks the Earth is a hollow sphere and that the inside is populated with the ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Must have been listening to those same pyramid antennas you tune to. Let me guess - I bet you're an expert on Hollow Earth Theory too!

      Delete
    58. BTW tin foil hat Joe, your original claim was that the pyramid is an antenna, not a high capacity electric power plant!

      If you're going to make it up as you go at least try to keep your lies straight.

      Delete
    59. Whatever thorton- you are just upset because your position has nothing, and it shows.

      BTW the folks at atbc are cowardly ignorant, drooling morons, just like you.

      Delete
    60. your original claim was that the pyramid is an antenna,


      From the article thorton was too cowardly to read:

      We note that the pyramidal unit cell constants are a function of ¹ and ΓΈ. Key sine wave parameters are resonant with
      the base length and height of the GPG, suggesting that the pyramid may scale up volumetrically as an antenna/electric
      transducer.


      Do you really think your cowardly ignorance means something, thorton? Really?

      Delete
    61. Luther, you're a funny guy, what with philosophers making computers (hahaha). And you hit two out of three: I don't play football and I don't care for philosophy. But I do science and am reasonably successful at that. So, you're wrong again. But what else is new?

      Delete
    62. Joe, so what's the wavelength to which the pyramids are supposed to be tuned as antennas? You have BS in EE or something, should be able to give a passable answer to that.

      Delete
    63. Whatever oleg- materialism is not science and neither is evolutionism. So obvioulsy the science you do has nothing to do with materialism or evolutionism.

      Delete
    64. oleg- If you are really interested then you would just do the research. That you don't proves that you aren't.

      Start with the last link I provided.

      It is obvious that oleg is also bothered by the fact that his position is not supported by science...

      Delete
    65. I've no time for this stuff, busy preparing today's lecture. But you have apparently read the article. If you have an EE degree, you should be able to figure out basic stuff like that.

      Delete
    66. Now, I don't know about computers, but a degree in philosophy apparently can lead to a successful career.

      Delete
    67. Oh, how cute! Joe, what are you busy with all day? Conducting new experiments with tics and watermelons?

      Delete
    68. Joe G

      You are a liar. I never claims to have forgotten more about antennas that everyone else knows. I said I have forgotten more than YOU will ever know


      But Joe, I DO know how to calculate a link budget, and what EIRP means, and how to determine an antenna's gain and sidelobes.

      Closest you ever came to an antenna is the 'rabbit ears' on the old B&W TV sets people dropped off at your toaster repair shop.

      So much for your "expertise" Mr. Know-it-all Gasbag. But keep getting your science from those new age woo woo sites. Watching you crash and burn is hilarious.

      Delete
    69. Joe G

      People can see that out of the blue you brought up pyramids and reincarnation.


      Yep, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I did it to show just how ignorant you are when it comes to all things scientific, and how you'll always lie and bluster to try and cover your ignorance.

      People could see you trying to defend your "pyramid is an antenna" stupidity by linking to three new age woo sites where each explanation contradicted the other two. People could also see you being a gasbag and bragging about your antenna knowledge, then being unable to answer the simplest technical questions on the topic.

      Face it gasbag - you ran your mouth again, got called on it, ended up looking like a lying fool THE SAME AS YOU ALWAYS DO.

      Now please scream some more obscenities for us, show people how I can make you dance like a trained monkey. Or better yet, post your 'tunie' link to show Cornelius how classy you can be.

      Delete
    70. People can see that neither thorton nor oleg could step out of teir cowardice long enough to try to support their position.

      Delete
    71. Joe G

      People can see that neither thorton nor oleg could step out of teir cowardice long enough to try to support their position.


      For the better part of a decade you've done nothing but repeat the same childish whine "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE AND CAN'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION!!".

      Seriously, have you ever managed to convince a single person with that argument? Even another brain-dead IDiot?

      Delete
    72. And for the better part of that same decade people like you have cowered and still have not supported the claims of your position.

      And yes, many people are convinced by that because it is always followed by evo belligerence and never followed by refuting evidence.

      Seriously, do you really think people haven't noticed that you have failed to support your position? Even another brain-dead evo?

      Delete
  5. I can only agree with the very first comment: 'Evolution' (as the term is usually meant) has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, unless you have invented a new meaning for the word.
    Its not a big deal, just semantics, but I think it suggests a deeper problem: A basic anti-science feeling that runs right through UD. Cornelius, like the other creationists, jumps with such glee on any admission by Science that it doesnt have all the answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oilboy, I take it you're not familiar with the writings of Cornelius Hunter. CH just loves to equivocate over the various meanings of the word evolution. It's probably his favorite rhetorical cheap trick, trotted out about every third OP. Doesn't make him look particularly honest or bright for that matter, but the Discovery Institute doesn't pay him to be honest or bright.

      Delete
    2. What do you take "equivocate" to mean?

      Delete
  6. Luther Flint

    What do you take "equivocate" to mean?


    e·quiv·o·cate [ih-kwiv-uh-keyt] V

    :to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:

    CH continually equivocates between evolution the empirically observed scientific fact and evolution the scientific theory which explains the observed fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well not in this post. Can you find an example where he is actually guilty of it.

      Delete
    2. And evos ALWAYS equivocate between evolution, as in a change in allele frequency over time and blind watchmaker evolution, the premise that all of life's diversity owes it collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Evos are the grand equivocators...

      Delete
  7. Luther Flint

    Well not in this post. Can you find an example where he is actually guilty of it.


    Easily. Here is but one of many examples

    Darwin's God: The Web Weavers

    CH: "Evolutionists say that evolution is a scientific fact. Evolutionists, who disagree on many things, come together on this basic point. There is no question, they insist, evolution is beyond any shadow of a doubt—it is a scientific fact every bit as much as gravity or the roundness of the earth is a scientific fact.

    This is not a statement about evolution, it is a statement about our knowledge of evolution. And while people can disagree about the details of evolution, there is less room for disagreement when it comes to our knowledge. Particularly when it is said to be such a clear cut fact."


    CH has been called on this dishonest equivocation a hundred times but he keeps right on making it. Seems to be all he knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you feel two senses of the word "evolution" are being used here. I count 5 uses of the word "evolution" in total - so, numbering them 1-5, which ones do you think are not the same sense as the others and what, if anything, turns on the difference, if difference there be?

      Delete
    2. Luther Flint

      Where do you feel two senses of the word "evolution" are being used here. I count 5 uses of the word "evolution" in total - so, numbering them 1-5, which ones do you think are not the same sense as the others and what, if anything, turns on the difference, if difference there be?


      Read the whole article including the comments. It's nothing but a huge equivocation between the fact and theory of evolution. It's CH's bread and butter.

      Delete
    3. Here's another thread where CH makes the same equivocation

      Evolution is a Scientific Fact: A Proposition

      Read the whole thing and the comments there too, watch him get called on the intellectual dishonesty multiple times.

      Delete
    4. I don't think you understand the article. What do you make, for example, of what I see as a key point that "To be sure evolution is often proved to be a fact, but in every case metaphysical premises are involved"?

      Delete
    5. Luther Flint

      I don't think you understand the article.


      I'm 100% sure you don't understand the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

      Delete
    6. I do understand the difference between what you regard as the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. I'll tell you once you address the question of what the stuff about "metaphysical premises".

      Delete
  8. From CH: "Theories of the Solar system evolution, ...etc..."

    The solar system didnt 'evolve' as the term is usually used. The term evolution is usually meant to mean Darwinian evolution. Of course you can say anything evolves, a love affair, etc etc, but since the term is almost ALWAYS used (esp in ID circles) to refer to Dawinian evolution, its pretty safe to assume that. To apply it to the solar system etc is a rather non-standard usage.

    This of course is all nit-picking semantics, something the ID crowd just revel in, but I find it just slightly irksome, because I think that behind it is this tacit, blanket assumption that everything is gods handiwork, nothing is allowed to happen by chance, and there is this nice convenient label that can be slapped on to anything.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oilboy- evos/ materialists use the word "evolution" to describe the solar system, so what is your point?

      Delete
    2. I deal with time evolution of physical systems (Schroedinger equation etc.). I wonder if that makes me an "evolutionist" and what would be the alternative theory that creationists would approve of.

      Delete
    3. Unless time reproduces itself there isn't any "evolution" as evolution requires reproduction.

      Delete
  9. Just out of interest, what is the point of this thread ? CH seems to be complaining that Science hasnt explained everything yet. Is that it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH gets paid by the Discovery Institute to slag evolution. The posts don't have to make any sense as long as they fling the appropriate amount of mud at real science. Quantity matters much more than quality to Creationists.

      Delete
  10. “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” "The Privileged Planet"

    ReplyDelete
  11. From Talk Origins:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

    "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

    THEREFORE, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these FACTS any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
    The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

    - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

    --

    Notice, the change at the word THEREFORE (emphasis mine). He is making an argument and the word THEREFORE is at beginning of his conclusion. Notice how he goes right into declaring his conclusion a FACT also. He leaves no room for his conclusion to be weak or strong, it is simply a fact according to Lewontin.


    Lewontin states, "No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these FACTS any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

    His argument confuses conclusion with fact. He begins with his premises ... "it is a fact" statements, draws a conclusion from these statements and then declares his conclusion a fact!

    ReplyDelete
  12. It looks like Cornelius still hasn't figured out how to moderate his blog.

    HINT- when you delete comments you have to delete all the comments relevent to the discussion taking place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is another simple solution, as multiple blog owners have figured out. Ban Joe G.

      Delete
    2. The only entries that were deleted were lots by Joe G screaming obscenities, and a few cases where people quoted Joe G screaming obscenities.

      That should give Joe G a clue, but it won't.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete