Creationists

[newpolitics]

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.

Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years

That's scary.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.

Your textbooks are to.

you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections

Daws you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.

Nope no lie here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You must demonstrate that something is true. You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).

I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.

If you are living in an imperfect world yes of course both will exist. Now demonstrate for us a system that was completely chaotic (early earth) that produced order that we see in this world. I think you and np have been smoking something.

 

[UltimateReality]

that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...

Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.

and you do? not fucking likely.

What the Daws is your problem? Why are you so hostile?

 

[UltimateReality]

that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect

It's not a delusion.

claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.

Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".

 

[UltimateReality]

UR
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter
another failed attempt to get over on another poster.

Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.

NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.

guess you had to look that up too...
you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.

... Says the KING of FOOT IN MOUTH's Disease. Why would you make such a bigoted comment that tights are gay?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.

The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.

Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.

Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.

 

[UltimateReality]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

it's the i'm sorry ploy....

No, it's the intellectually honest admission that I was wrong. This must be very foreign to a Crotchety old coot like you. The sad thing is everyone knows when you're faking it because you are so transparent.

 

[UltimateReality]

Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with something . Anything, pointing to this possibility.

You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.

This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?

That's a smelly red-herring you have there. Mind telling me why you are dragging that across the path of this discussion?


If you can demonstrate how dark energy or dark matter would interfere with distance measurements, then maybe you can vindicate yourself. As it is, you are simply throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying we have the law of gravity here on earth that is based on millions of measurements that have confirmed its validity. Then we observe the movement of Galaxies and they don't follow our earthly law of gravity. So we invent mysterious forces like dark matter and dark energy and then spend billions of dollars on a machine that makes us think we may have found a new particle but the level of certainty required makes us not so sure we have found it. That doesn't stop us from holding news conferences to say we've almost found it to keep us from looking like total asses for wasting billions of research dollars on something so supernatural that it is called the God particle. All that make sense?

Logic would at least have us use caution in taking all the laws we know about light here on earth and then applying them to astronomical distances. This is akin to YWC objections to carbon or radiometric dating. We are looking at an inch of data on a mile long timeline and doing some serious extrapolation!!!

 

[newpolitics]

I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.

If you are living in an imperfect world yes of course both will exist. Now demonstrate for us a system that was completely chaotic (early earth) that produced order that we see in this world. I think you and np have been smoking something.

I was wrong. The earth is a closed system. However, the 2nd LOTD's has nothing to do with closed systems, but isolated systems.


What the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says:

"For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."

Second Law of Thermodynamics


The universe is an isolated system, and the 2nd LOTD's, reworded, states that the universe tends towards entropy. The earth, however, is a closed system (approximately), which means matter is not exchanged, but energy is. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy, and is what is required for entropy to increase over time. An open system can exchange both matter and energy.


Classification of systems:

Thermodynamic systems

Energy transfer is studied in three types of systems:

Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.

Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.

Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).

Heat can be transferred between open systems and between closed systems, but not between isolated systems.

UR's and YWC's hypothesis that we should expect increased entropy and not increased order on earth, is wrong.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.

The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.

Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?

 

[UltimateReality]

How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?

You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist Paranoia will destroy you.

...And theres a little green man in my head...

 

[Youwerecreated]

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?

You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist Paranoia will destroy you.

We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.

Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF

 

[newpolitics]

You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist Paranoia will destroy you.

We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.

Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF

This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.

Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF

This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.

Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF

This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.

Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.

I think you are anthropomorphizing "entropy" and "chaos" a little too much. Entropy simply determines that thermal energy will transfer from areas of high heat to low heat. (wiki) That's all. More hurricanes is not an indication increased overall entropy or chaos for this earthly system, in scientific terms. Although, colloquially, we may say a hurricane is chaotic. It is not the same thing in science.

As for your other questions. We have death... and birth. Structures tire out... and are rebuilt anew. If this were an isolated system, there would be no energy to renew anything, and things would tend towards entropy and total decay. This is what you are imagining, but the earth is not an isolated system, but a closed system, which allows energy to enter and leave. Therefore, things can be rebuilt.

If the Sun were to somehow die out without destroying the Earth during its supernova, then we would have no substantial incoming energy. The Earth would then approximate an isolated system, although this type of system is only theoretical, since there is always some type of energy transfer through radiation. The universe itself is the only possible isolated system, but we can't know for sure.

 

[newpolitics]

I want to address the notion put forth by UR that there exists a distinct line between historical sciences and experimental sciences, because this is not so. I am simply going to post a link to an article and few quotes.

Granted, it is from a website dedicated to dismantling creationism, but no doubt UR's source is a from a creationist source. So, we're even. It's only fair to represent the other viewpoint, right?

"Historical science" vs. "experimental science" | NCSE

(FYI, Explore Evolution is a biology textbook written by intelligent designer proponents.)

Explore Evolution relies on an ill-defined distinction between "experimental science" and "historical sciences," and asserts that claims about the latter cannot be directly verified. While the terms Explore Evolution uses are indeed applied by philosophers of science, those philosophers use the terms quite differently. Both approaches to scientific questions are valid, a given scientific field can draw on both approaches, and neither approach is less scientifically powerful. Explore Evolution is wrong to state that these different approaches require "different methods," and even more wrong to state that "in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events" (p. 3)

Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims.

Sober continues by observing that the sort of mathematical modeling undertaken by some evolutionary biologists is not historical in this sense, but seeks after the sort of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. Evolutionary biology thus is both a nomothetic science and an historical science.

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

Explore Evolution follows a long history of creationist misrepresentation on this point. Creationists have long attempted to undercut the validity of evolutionary theory by claiming that it is not genuine science and therefore need not be taken seriously. Evolution has been called "just a theory" as opposed to fact, "speculative" as opposed to demonstrated, and "historical" as opposed to "experimental."

The problem with these attempts to divide science neatly into two piles is that, as Sober observes, a given science, and even a given scientist, can switch between approaches in the quest to address a single question. Geologists can plumb the oldest rocks on earth for evidence of the first life, but they can also go to the lab and recreate the conditions of early earth to test predictions of hypothesis about events billions of years ago. And those results from a modern laboratory will send researchers back to the field to test predictions about historical events generated in the laboratory.

Similarly, physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland are testing theories about the origin of the universe:

"The LHC will recreate, on a microscale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang.

At the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the Universe consisted of a searingly hot soup of fundamental particles - quarks, leptons and the force carriers. As the Universe cooled to 1000 billion degrees, the quarks and gluons (carriers of the strong force) combined into composite particles like protons and neutrons. The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting 'Little Bang'. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining. The debris detected will provide important information about this very early state of matter."

Science and Technology Facilities Council (2008) "The Big Questions" page on "The Large Hadron Collider" website. Accessed September 18, 2008.


Which category of science does this belong to? Clearly, it is both historical science and experimental science. Other such historical claims can be evaluated using modern experiments.

 

[UltimateReality]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.

"B. Formal Sciences
1. Logic and mathematics
2. Both define their own universe.
3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element &#8212; once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
5. These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science &#8212; an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.

C. Empirical Sciences
1. Deal with objects and observations
a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
a. The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.
(1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
(2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
b. The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.
(1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species. Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.
(2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances (where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.
3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!
4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. "Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables &#8212; while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations &#8212; as possible."

What Is Science?

I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.

And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is a great example of what I think your article is referring to but the truth is shrouded a bit. While we can predict almost flawlessly the orbit of the moon around the earth, this question below is 100% historical science, although at first glance it appears to be observational or empirical. It does not cross the line with empirical science because observational science is required as a prerequisite for the discussion on the historical science of the matter. It is from a BIASED source, but nevertheless, certain truths abide. It demonstrates perfectly, the competing hypotheses example in action as referred to in the Berkley article about an event in the distant past.

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&#8217;s Science magazine provides yet another example of this phenomenon of a multiplicity of explanations in another one of professor Brush&#8217;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 &#8220;offer differing solutions to the problem.&#8221; Fortunately the fact of evolution does not depend of the science of evolution.

Although we could eventually default to the best explanation, none of these explanations could ever be called the "fact" of Earth/Moon origins.

Darwin's God: Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution

Welcome.... to the real world.