View Single Post
Old 7th May 2012, 03:51 PM   #170
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Very true. The nebular theory of planetary formation was hypothesized by Kant, but it was also supported by a huge array of evidence, including evidence from on Earth, evidence from Moon rocks, evidence from other planetary bodies in the form of pieces that have hit Earth and in the form of data from probes, and evidence from astronomy in the form of actually observing early planetary formation in nebulas. There's a huge amount of data supporting the idea that the Earth formed as part of the Sun's nebula by the accretion of smaller particles.

To believe in pretty much any other mode of planetary formation is to reject a very large amount of data, which directly calls one's credibility into question (as if citing a Creationist source didn't do enough of that).
At the risk of going somewhat off-topic the history of the nebular model is one of my favourite examples of self-correction in science; eighty odd years ago the nebular hypothesis fell out of favour with cosmologists as there appeared to be serious problems with the model. Hence a new model, that better fitted known facts, the catastrophic model was developed; in which another star passed close to the Sun, tidal forces deforming the Sun's atmosphere so much that streams of gas escaped its gravity, condensed as dense clouds of matter and eventually formed the planets. This took a few thousand years rather than the billion or so predicted by early versions of the nebular hypothesis.
Better models caused the re-introduction of the nebular model and later developments, e.g. elemental distribution, pretty much ruled the catastrophic model out.
As an aside this is why the catastrophic model appears in a lot of 'Golden Age' sci-fi, such as that of Smith [it's a major plot point in the Lensman series] and Weinbaum.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
any suggestion for other alternatives ?
Yes. Several.

Originally Posted by realpaladin View Post
GIBHOR, the reason you hear so often 'we don't know' is because the 'yet' is silent.

First there needs to be established that it is necessary to have a 'first cause'.

Just as the people 200 years ago had no clue how to build an atom bomb, we do not have a clue if something is really needed to 'cause' existence.

As we have factually witnessed in the course of documented history, nature actually is quite different from how we just perceive it.

So our 'need' for a first cause may just as well be analogous for our 'need' to feel that time is constant and the speed of light *should* be different for different observers.

The answer 'I don't know' does not in any way invalidate any other knowledge.

This is analogous to your car breaking down and your son asking you 'daddy, what is wrong?'. You answering 'I don't know' does not suddenly mean nothing is wrong. It just means you do not know the 'cause' *yet*
In 200 years time we may be creating new universes.

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Ah, but it can, you also can't make a star go supernova, you can test theory against observations.
Well there are, IIRC, some ideas about how to induce a supernova but they're not possible yet. Big gamma-ray lasers were suggested.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
It has. Many, many, many times. God botherers just ignore this inconvenient fact.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Ban this filth!
Are you channelling the Daily Mail?
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top