Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More clutching at straws.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!
You do not understand the difference between protoscience and pseudoscience.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
A good example of apophenia.
would be Piltdown man
Apophenia?I'd call that grasping at straws, especially given that science finally sorted that one out .. and called it out for what it was.
No .. because nowadays beliefs are held independent by scientifically thinking minds .. and are therefore completely irrelevant.Apophenia?
To this end, I agree.Beliefs, in my opinion, are to be discouraged, wherever possible ..
And again, I agree.SelfSim said:.. so that science can progress its objective investigations independently of the clutter beliefs create.
Splutter .. gag .. cough .. cough! (Gotta clean my screen now ..!)To this end, I agree.
Righting wrongs is an endeavor worth pursuing.And again, I agree.
You are sooo confused .. Science didn't overstep any of your believed-in boundaries!AV1611VET said:But when science oversteps its boundaries ... well ... see my previous comment in this post.
Beliefs, in my opinion, are to be discouraged, wherever possible ..
To this end, I agree.
Perhaps you should have stipulated "my beliefs," as the first thing that came to mind when I read that was Shoko Asahara.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!
Here's a doosey of a belief of mine that can't be tested:(Ie: in the face of untestability of your beliefs, you then concoct ridiculous stories that virtually no rationally thinking individual can accept).
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.Perhaps you should have stipulated "my beliefs," as the first thing that came to mind when I read that was Shoko Asahara.
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?)AV1611VET said:But Mohammad's beliefs, Jim Jones' beliefs, and Heaven's Gate were just as potent.
Yes you do ... Your belief is in the truth value of the Bible.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."
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.
You do not understand the difference between protoscience and pseudoscience.
Big Bang theory like GR was never considered pseudoscience .
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.
This is one of my pet peeves.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;
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.)It's [the formation of the moon] an extremely improbable occurrence,
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.note that the other inner rocky planets have no moons to speak of (a couple of irregular rocks orbit Mars)
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.the Earth-Moon is practically a binary system
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?essential to the stability and development of life on Earth
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?
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?
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:unsophisticated reasoning, loose thinking, pretension..
sticks and stones- if you can rephrase your questions without derogatory remarks, I'd be happy to address them.
the only fair assessment is that your reasoning is simplistic
I am not attacking your intellect. I am attacking the arguments that arise from its misapplication.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?