What did it all started with?

[sjastro]

Ah yes! But either way the moon was necessary to stabilize the Earth's rotation & provide tides to assist with the sea to land transition- this phenomena of one great stabilizing satellite developing around an inner rocky planet is a very uncommon result in any modelling of the solar system..

So it's gotta be there, a design constraint you might say- so also providing a perfect mask for observing the corona at just the right time is a bonus!

More clutching at straws.
So the the formation of the Moon which is supported by the evidence of being a collision between the Earth and a minor planet and therefore a random event had a purpose in advancing science?
This is not even science.
Science is not about why or purpose but how.

 

[sjastro]

Ideally yes, except that Piltdown man was 'we'll assume it's true until proven wrong'
while The Primeval Atom/ Big Bang was 'we'll assume it's pseudoscience until proven true'

And the implications of each had a lot to do with that double standard

You do not understand the difference between protoscience and pseudoscience.
Big Bang theory like GR was never considered pseudoscience but started off as a hypothesis which was later supported by observation.

Pseudoscience on the other hand which incidentally you are advocating is characterized by confirmation bias and trying to fit the facts into an existing narrative.
Your moon example is a classic case of how pseudoscience operates.

 

[AV1611VET]

A good example of apophenia.

would be Piltdown man

I'd call that grasping at straws, especially given that science finally sorted that one out .. and called it out for what it was.

Apophenia?

 

[SelfSim]

Apophenia?

No .. because nowadays beliefs are held independent by scientifically thinking minds .. and are therefore completely irrelevant.

History, on the other hand, has many negative, (and perhaps more positive), instances of where beliefs were put on a pedestal.

Beliefs, in my opinion, are to be discouraged, wherever possible .. so that science can progress its objective investigations independently of the clutter beliefs create.
ETA: (As exemplified by the ~40 years of confusion caused by the Piltdown Man fraud).

 

[AV1611VET]

Beliefs, in my opinion, are to be discouraged, wherever possible ..

To this end, I agree.

Righting wrongs is an endeavor worth pursuing.

.. so that science can progress its objective investigations independently of the clutter beliefs create.

And again, I agree.

But when science oversteps its boundaries ... well ... see my previous comment in this post.

 

[SelfSim]

To this end, I agree.

Righting wrongs is an endeavor worth pursuing.And again, I agree.

Splutter .. gag .. cough .. cough! (Gotta clean my screen now ..!)
Are you serious?
Your entire existence here at CFs is for the sole purpose of propagating such beliefs!
You should get clear on at least that much!

But when science oversteps its boundaries ... well ... see my previous comment in this post.

You are sooo confused .. Science didn't overstep any of your believed-in boundaries!
In fact, Science produced no conclusive data on the Piltdown Man issue when it originally came up ..

People and their opinions, however, (like believing in Darwin), filled in the gaps (which, co-incidentally, is exactly the same process you employ when it comes to similar matters. (Ie: in the face of untestability of your beliefs, you then concoct ridiculous stories that virtually no rationally thinking individual can accept).

 

[AV1611VET]

Beliefs, in my opinion, are to be discouraged, wherever possible ..

To this end, I agree.

Splutter .. gag .. cough .. cough! (Gotta clean my screen now ..!)
Are you serious?
Your entire existence here at CFs is for the sole purpose of propagating such beliefs!

Perhaps you should have stipulated "my beliefs," as the first thing that came to mind when I read that was Shoko Asahara.

But Mohammad's beliefs, Jim Jones' beliefs, and Heaven's Gate were just as potent.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Ie: in the face of untestability of your beliefs, you then concoct ridiculous stories that virtually no rationally thinking individual can accept).

Here's a doosey of a belief of mine that can't be tested:

Jesus walked on water.

And I don't have to "concoct a ridiculous story that virtually no rationally thinking individual can accept."

Unless, of course, you want to go look for His footprints on the sea of Galilee.

Be my guest.

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps you should have stipulated "my beliefs," as the first thing that came to mind when I read that was Shoko Asahara.

Your online persona of someone who literally interprets the Bible, is based on your belief in the truth value of its contents, which then causes you to do all sorts of contortions when presented with the demonstrable contradictions in logic, and in physical behaviours.
Those contortions are the evidence of your need to sustain and propagate that fundamental belief amongst those who might accept such literalism.

If you disagree with that, then simply deny its truth value .. (which is highly unlikely).

But Mohammad's beliefs, Jim Jones' beliefs, and Heaven's Gate were just as potent.

So what's that about then? Are you saying that because I'm calling you out on your core belief and how it influences your postings here, that I'm then (somehow) motivated by the potent beliefs held by historical mass murderers (perhaps with the exception of Mohammad there?)

Seems pretty hyperbolic and incongruous of you, if that's the case?

 

[SelfSim]

Here's a doosey of a belief of mine that can't be tested:

Jesus walked on water.

And I don't have to "concoct a ridiculous story that virtually no rationally thinking individual can accept."

Yes you do ... Your belief is in the truth value of the Bible.
Your 'ridiculous story' there, is in the literal interpretation of that particular concept .. which you then propagate as being an 'historical fact'.

 

[Gene2memE]

Oh sure, after only 40 years of basing human evolution on a single dodgy fraud, exhibited in natural history museums all over the world- even using it as evidence in court to have it taught in schools.

Are you describing Piltdown Man here? Because it seems like you're wildly off base if you are.

While Piltdown Man was indeed a fraud, and was indeed used as an example of human evolution as captured in the fossil record, even in court. However, it was far from the only fossil example of human evolution known at the time. Or even the best know, or most studied.

By 1900, there were partial skulls and skeletal remains of what we'd classify today as Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis, as well as at least a dozen examples of Homo sapiens that were in excess of 30,000 years old. Among these were the famous 'Java Man', 'Heidelberg Man', 'Cro Magnon Man', Talgai skull, 'Chancelade Man' and the Le Moustier skull.

In the decade following Piltdown, there were literally dozens more human evolutionary fossils discovered.

Piltdown was such a successful hoax because there was such a rush to find specimens it captured the public imagination - to the point where the British wouldn't let outside experts examine it (American, German and French requests to examine the find were all rebuffed).

Once it was opened up to examination (not until the late 1940s) it was pretty quickly discovered to be a forgery.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You do not understand the difference between protoscience and pseudoscience.
Big Bang theory like GR was never considered pseudoscience .

(Wikipedia)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

More clutching at straws.
So the the formation of the Moon which is supported by the evidence of being a collision between the Earth and a minor planet and therefore a random event had a purpose in advancing science?
This is not even science.

It's an extremely improbable occurrence, note that the other inner rocky planets have no moons to speak of (a couple of irregular rocks orbit Mars) and the other large moons in our system belong to gas giants/ are multiple, having little effect on the stability of their orbits

- the Earth-Moon is practically a binary system, very difficult to reproduce in a model, and essential to the stability and development of life on Earth

Science is not about why or purpose but how.

Argue that assertion with an archeologist or forensic scientist! Motivation of an intelligent agent, plays a great part in many lines of scientific investigation.

Nature is the executor of God's laws as Galileo said. Along with Lemaitre and Planck, I do not think it is a coincidence either, that some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs came from noted skeptics of atheism. They were not restricted by such arbitrary tenets of materialism as you cite, but free to follow the evidence wherever it pointed

 

[AV1611VET]

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics;

This is one of my pet peeves.

Why is it considered "importing religious concepts into physics," and not the other way around: "importing physics into religious concepts"?

Especially if the Big Bang model was the new kid on the block?

 

[Ophiolite]

It's [the formation of the moon] an extremely improbable occurrence,

Please provide appropriate citations that support this assertion. Alternatively acknowledge that you are just expressing a personal, unsupported opinion. I am happy with either option. (And if you have a third, go ahead. I don't deal false dichotomies.)

note that the other inner rocky planets have no moons to speak of (a couple of irregular rocks orbit Mars)

And yet the vast Caloris Basin on Mercury was the product of a giant impact that stripped much of the mantle from the planet. The crustal dichotomy on Mars was also likely the product of a giant impact. The retorgrade rotation of Venus has been attributed to a giant impact. So giant impacts are very much a thing for terrestrial planet experience. Using your unsophisticated reasoning the evidence from the solar system is that giant impacts produce a moon 25% of the time. That doesn't look like an improbable occurence.

the Earth-Moon is practically a binary system

The moon has 1% of the mass of the Earth. You feel that makes it "practically a binary system"? Your loose thinking is duly noted.

essential to the stability and development of life on Earth

Another unsupported assertion. I don't question the stability of axial tilt, but I do vigorously question the pretension that this was essential to the development of life on Earth. I can offer a logical argument that that very stability slowed life's development. What do you have to support your claim?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is one of my pet peeves.

Why is it considered "importing religious concepts into physics," and not the other way around: "importing physics into religious concepts"?

Especially if the Big Bang model was the new kid on the block?

It didn't fit with the vagaries of fashion at the time, the reductionist/ materialist world view which had become very popular.

Always worth noting that this was among a fairly small but very influential group of academics, most people were and still are, skeptical of this Victorian age world view

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please provide appropriate citations that support this assertion. Alternatively acknowledge that you are just expressing a personal, unsupported opinion. I am happy with either option. (And if you have a third, go ahead. I don't deal false dichotomies.)

And yet the vast Caloris Basin on Mercury was the product of a giant impact that stripped much of the mantle from the planet. The crustal dichotomy on Mars was also likely the product of a giant impact. The retorgrade rotation of Venus has been attributed to a giant impact. So giant impacts are very much a thing for terrestrial planet experience. Using your unsophisticated reasoning the evidence from the solar system is that giant impacts produce a moon 25% of the time. That doesn't look like an improbable occurence.

The moon has 1% of the mass of the Earth. You feel that makes it "practically a binary system"? Your loose thinking is duly noted.

Another unsupported assertion. I don't question the stability of axial tilt, but I do vigorously question the pretension that this was essential to the development of life on Earth. I can offer a logical argument that that very stability slowed life's development. What do you have to support your claim?

'unsophisticated reasoning', 'loose thinking', 'pretension.. '

sticks and stones- if you can rephrase your questions without derogatory remarks, I'd be happy to address them.

 

[Ophiolite]

unsophisticated reasoning, loose thinking, pretension..

sticks and stones- if you can rephrase your questions without derogatory remarks, I'd be happy to address them.

Objective assements of any members arguments are acceptable within the forum rules. I am attacking your arguments, not you. In the absence of any supporting theory, evidence or logic, the only fair assessment is that your reasoning is simplistic and your thinking loosely constrained. Within context pretension is not derogatory, but a synonym for "unsupported claim". But, since I am interested in your well considered thoughts on the matter, here are the rephrased requests and question:

• Please provide recent citations (plural) from well regarded peer reviewed journals justifying your claim that the formation of the moon was improbable.
• Please provide similar material, or well constructed logical argument, to justify your claim that the Earth-moon system is practically a binary [planetary] system.
  
• On what basis (citations from well regarded peer reviewed journals) do you claim that axial stability was essential to the development of life on Earth?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the only fair assessment is that your reasoning is simplistic

My hopes were not high

There are lots of claims here I disagree with, I could likewise attack the persons intellect, their integrity, and demand they go off doing research for me - and there are lots of forums where you see little else going on. I'm not offended, I just find that style of argument fairly boring

I find it makes for a much more interesting and worthwhile debate, to assume people are honest, capable of critical thought, to take them at their word and give them your own counter argument. There are plenty people here capable of doing that, so don't take it personally if I prefer to debate with them.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are lots of claims here I disagree with, I could likewise attack the persons intellect, their integrity, and demand they go off doing research for me - and there are lots of forums where you see little else going on. I'm not offended, I just find that style of argument fairly boring

I am not attacking your intellect. I am attacking the arguments that arise from its misapplication.
I have not said anything whatsoever to question your integrity.

I am not demanding that you do research for me. I am requesting that, in accord with forum rules, conventional behaviour on science forums and general good manners, you provide support for the assertions you have made. I regret that you consider that to do so would be boring. Next time I respond to one of your posts I'll try to be more delicate. Enjoy October.