Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Where ever would they get a theory like that?

Research conducted by a team of North American scientist shows our solar system is special, contrary to the accepted theory that it is an average planetary system. Using computer simulations to follow the development of planets, it was shown that very specific conditions are needed for a proto-stellar disk to evolve into a solar system-like planetary system.

---------- FIX YOUR THINKING COMMENTARY ----------

I think you can believe whatever you want to believe - but this is even more support from secular science that maybe there IS something special going on here on this pale blue dot - and Carl Sagan will go down as one of the most doubted and disproved scientists in his field.


Paul Douglas said...

Phil, I certainly hope you're not trying to attach something divine to this...They're just saying our solar system is not typical so it's less likely others have inhabited planets.

I am a lover of children's literature said...

I definitely believe that there is more reason to believe in a Higher Power than there is to believe in evolution. Life is too complex to simply evolve. Several leading mathematicians have calculated that the odds of a simple 'one' cell organism evolving was greater than all of the atoms in the known universe!

I rest my case!

FYT said...

JensonB ...

I was convinced before this evidence. It's not fair for every piece of news that comes out in support of evolution for evolutionists to attach themselves to and when a rare gem like this comes out not allow creationists (me) to smile.

I had already seen a PLETHORA of information supporting this from a movie called The Privileged Planet - YOU MUST SEE IT. Leave me a comment and I'll let you borrow it from me if you'd like.

Paul Douglas said...

I've no problem with you believing in the divine, but to suggest this in some way proves that belief to be one more people should have is simply false. All it does is say our solar system is special. You may believe that's because of divine intervention, that's fine. But all this news gives us is a fact, not an explanation.

Incidentally, we need to stop with this pretending evolution is a theory. Evolution is demonstrable scientific fact. The Theory is the Theory of Natural Selection - related, yes, but not the entirety of evolution.

It makes no sense for Creationists to decry Evolution either, there is no reason to believe evolution denies the possibility of a divine entity. It simply answers the how. The why is up in the air. Noone was there, noone knows. You pick the explanation that works for you for now.

I'd rather go with something incredibly unlikely than something which bends my concept of causality, of logic.

FYT said...

JensonB ...

I'm not denying evolution is a fact. I don't think any Creationist does. However, it IS a theory. It is in no way provable beyond the written history of man detailing such a process. Natural selection is provable to a point as well - I lean towards there being a "Mother Natural Selection" - ie in cass of Dinosaur extinction, climate change, etc - but the term Mother Nature i a replacement for the term "God" for those that choose not to use the term.

I think if you watched The Privileged Planet you would have a better understanding of the information revealed in this latest study.

The information revealed in this show that aired on the Discovery Channel was the basis for MANY of the people who made it to reconsider their own theories AS THEY MADE IT.

Anonymous said...

Jensonb, first of all, evolution is not a fact. That's why it is referred to as the "Theory of Evolution." What can be demonstrated in the lab or via observation over short or long periods of time merely supports the theory. It neither proves it nor disproves it.

Secondly, whenever someone refers to the term "evolution" in this context they are not talking about things like natural selection. Natural selection is something that is indeed observable and has again been used as evidence to buttress the THEORY of evolution. When people use the general term "evolution" in the context of articles like this they are talking about the origin of life as we know it.

It takes a whole lot of faith to believe in evolution. A lot. I think it is incredible that people scoff at creationism and in the same breath embrace evolutionism. (is that a word??)(heh,heh)

Evolutionists jump on every article that has a modicum of relatibility to their theory. For a creationist to point out something fairly significant like this article is not something to be criticized. Scientists have been saying or implying for years that our solar system is typical and no different from any others and this clearly flies in the face of that assertion.

Creationism is gaining credibility and is no longer simply a matter of faith only. You're going to have to get used to that. If you're looking for something credible, evolution is not going to provide you with the solution. It is neither logical nor likely is it likely that evolution was the mechanism of the origin of life or somehow related to creation.

If you're going to look to what people believe as a whole, either worldwide or just in this country, most people would tell you that they believe in God and that He created the universe. Scientists understand this and that is one of the reasons that they find it necessary to scoff at anything that supports this point of view.

Paul Douglas said...

Evolution is fact, saying it's a theory does not make it so. You can see evolution happening even within your lifetime. What you need to understand is creationism, whilst being a valid theory, has a harder time proving itself than evolution does because evolution can bee seen to occur, for example in the way parents pass on their traits to their children. Now, that doesn't mean you have to believe it, but to all intents and purposes it's a demonstrable scientific fact. Creationism is not disproved by it because they are answers to two different questions - this is why the whole argument is stupid.

Creationism suggests there is or was a divine entity (And essentially the only way to prove creationism is to find evidence of this being) which defined life forms and so on (Very roughly summarised, yes). Evolution meanwhile says that the way beings come to be as they are is by those beings with certain tats being better able to survive, so as time wears on, say, bigger beings do a better job surviving and therefore breeding and therefore more of the offspring are larger (Again, roughly summarised). Neither contradicts the other in any way unless you make it.

So no, I don't see why it is that you need to jump on every piece of circumstantial (And it is) evidence of creationism just because "Evolutionists" do the same. If that bothers you, why are you lowering yourself to it?

But do you want to know why they do? It's because evolution is Science, that's what you do when evidence emerges in science, you explain what it proves, how and why. The reason creationists "get" less chance to do this is because it's harder to find evidence in support of a theory which was created entirely by religion.

But since you like to pick so many holes in something as logical as evolution buzmania, I'll ask you something about creationism (Which takes a whole lot more faith since there's virtually no non-circumstantial evidence whereas I've seen evidence of evolution with my own eyes):

If a divine entity created everything an defined life forms and what have you...Well, how in all heck did the divine entity come into being?

Answer without saying "I don't know" or "It created itself". And don't mention any religions or their ideas (Unless presented as logical science, that's fine) either, this is science.

I am a lover of children's literature said...

The problem with evolution is that scientists, for the most part, believe in the big bang THEORY. They state that there was this one little atom, that suddenly, for no good reason, just exploded into the vast universe we see all around us! (how very silly!)

The question is, where did that single atom come from? Did it always exist.... wait, that's impossible! Something that always existed, something that 'just happened' is NOT NATURAL! Something that always existed, or just 'appeared out of nowhere WOULDN"T be a NATURAL happening - it WOULD be a SUPERNATURAL happening!

I rest my case.

FYT said...

JensonB said:

If a divine entity created everything and defined life forms and what have you...Well, how in all heck did the divine entity come into being?

The Bible refers to this as one of the "great mysteries" that will be revealed. I have answered this question to dozens of children though and I put it like this:

Do you believe "goodness" is a force? When you see something pleasing, does it cause you to smile? When you help someone out, do you in turn, also feel lifted? Maybe, the existence of goodness made a spark that created "Perfection" - God and the angels. Okay, but that feeling is a bunch of endorphins and chemicals - ok I agree. But evolution would over time seem to remove feelings of pain, despair, depression (which coincidentally are caused by the same chemicals) - why then hasn't our chemical makeup evolved? Survival of the fittest - an observable and undisputed part of evolution - would dictate that things get better and more balanced towards the well ... fittest.

One of my favorite Star Trek episodes is where the "bad" is removed from Kirk and Spock. But what is realized - there can be no good qualities without the difference to tell between good and evil.

To me - evolution dictates that bad traits would be eliminated over time - not complicated.

To counter, there is no origin of the big bang and no conceptual understanding of how something could come from nothing - what was the catalyst for that explosion - where did that initial matter come from, how was it created? To say that Creationists should have to explain the origin of God in order to be credible or to justify their argument is very obtuse.

I would like to point out that you are combining, natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution, and the origin of the universe into one "all encompassing" term of "evolution" - doing so is like saying the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the "Theory of all numbers".

And JensonB ... I appreciate your comments, but on one point you are as wrong as one can be. Theory is not fact. Sure, some theories can be demonstrated repeatedly with the same results. Evolution is NOT one of the theories that can be proven - at least to the extent that secular evolution demands of the definition. I certainly believe in evolution and I do not dispute evolution in any way. Secular evolution however has added "the origin species" because of a whack job (Darwin) trying to insert his opinion into religion - and get it straight FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE. Darwin's research was real, repeatable, observable, and factual - his opinions on the UNOBSERVABLE parts of his work. They are his opinion and do not even qualify as theory.

Darwin was a genius. Darwin did great work. Because of that - many take all of his words just as gospel. Darwin inserting the origin of species and Science inserting the origin of the universe into evolution is like Bill Gates being an authority qualified to be CEO of Apple Computer. Yeah, he's the ultimate qualification - but has the worst understanding of the Apple market and philosophy.

My obtuse question is:

If it's so easy to create life, why haven't we? Why haven't we even come close with AI? The knowledge is there, the understanding is there ... what's missing? Why haven't we even been able to create a plant? <-- we have only been able to take existing plants and mutate or manipulate them. Why can't monkeys talk? We have 20 generation monkeys that can do sign language but as far its observable to me are no more intelligent than dogs. I realize evolution has to throw in the debateable and unobservable "10's of thousands and millions of years argument" - but why can't we - with our vast knowledge - speed up this process for something that matters - say something other than a fruit fly or mouse?

JensonB said:

Answer without saying "I don't know" or "It created itself". And don't mention any religions or their ideas (Unless presented as logical science, that's fine) either, this is science.

I haven't mentioned any particular religion. Creationism has very little to do with the divine, or being "just an answer". I prefer the term "Intelligent Design" - but I personally attribute that design to my God. I can't understand why secular evolutionists must insert religion into a "we are unique or at least hardly repeatable equation" - which is the main gist of the ID argument. Most all of science is repeatable, observable, observable or capable of being computer modeled that it is repeatable - do you know of any theory outside of the universe being created, life arising, our existence - that can't be repeated? It is my understanding that a theory cannot be "upgraded" to fact unless it can be observed directly and repeated with the same results across a wide variety of common subjects.