Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

November 25, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolutionary thought holds that the universe, the quasars, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets and moons 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] Read more

Comments

semi OT: OT: NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space - (Dec. 3, 2012) Excerpt: Since December 2004, when Voyager 1 crossed a point in space called the termination shock, the spacecraft has been exploring the heliosphere's outer layer, called the heliosheath. In this region, the stream of charged particles from the sun, known as the solar wind, abruptly slowed down from supersonic speeds and became turbulent. Voyager 1's environment was consistent for about five and a half years. The spacecraft then detected that the outward speed of the solar wind slowed to zero. The intensity of the magnetic field also began to increase at that time. Voyager data from two onboard instruments that measure charged particles showed the spacecraft first entered this magnetic highway region on July 28, 2012. The region ebbed away and flowed toward Voyager 1 several times. The spacecraft entered the region again Aug. 25 and the environment has been stable since. "We are in a magnetic region unlike any we've been in before -- about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock -- but the magnetic field data show no indication we're in interstellar space," said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space." Voyager 1 and 2 were launched 16 days apart in 1977. At least one of the spacecraft has visited Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Voyager 1 is the most distant human-made object, about 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) away from the sun. The signal from Voyager 1 takes approximately 17 hours to travel to Earth. Voyager 2, the longest continuously operated spacecraft, is about 9 billion miles (15 billion kilometers) away from our sun, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121203154500.htm Picture of Heliosheath: http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/034/024/original/sun-southern-wind-flow-north.jpg?1354584996 Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High - 2009 Excerpt: "The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of solar magnetism called "the heliosphere." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090929133244.htm The Protective Boundaries of our Solar System (Heliosphere) - NASA IBEX - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0qcQZXpIIbornagain77_{December 4, 2012
December
12
Dec
4
04
2012
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

I’ve been told to read both Cryptonomicon and Anathem but haven’t gotten around to either.
I enjoyed both of those as well.Mung_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

'Evolutionary thought holds that the universe, the quasars, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets and moons arose spontaneously by chance events and natural law.' But there was no 'natural law'. That's the whole point. It had to be ex nihilo, ab initio. The so-called. 'natural law', is no more than a codification of observed regularities in nature. Nor were they 'chance events'! There was no life and no matter, just a great unknowable Singularity from which the building-blocks of our space-time universe issued. I'm not sure that 'a chance event', still less, 'chance events' quite covers the genetic activity of the Singularity. So, to say that the door should be left open for theism, particularly given the growing, irrefutable, scientific evidence for it, would be something of an epochal understatement.Axel_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Mung, that's a lovely quote from Stephenson! And to answer your question from last week, I have read Quicksilver but not the rest of The Baroque Cycle. And I haven't read any other Stephenson. I've been told to read both Cryptognomicon and Anathem but haven't gotten around to either. Yes, I think the whole situation changes because of Hume's devastating attack on rational metaphysics. "Of skepticism with regard reason" and "of skepticism with regard to the senses" (both in his Treatise on Human Nature) destroyed 'medieval serenity' for us. For the first time it became clear that the intelligibility of the world required an argument, and an argument of a very peculiar sort -- what we now call a transcendental argument. For what it's worth, I think the correct view will involve taking pages from the playbooks of C. I. Lewis, Wilfrid Sellars, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. I have a few ideas about how to tie them all together but nothing really solid enough yet. Some days I feel as though I'm on the verge of an insight, and other days I'm lost in the woods.Kantian Naturalist_{November 26, 2012
November
11
Nov
26
26
2012
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist:
Whether that is true depends on whether or not “for no reason at all” is a good answer.
From Metaphysics in the Royal Society 1715-2010 in Neal Stephenson, Some Remarks: Essays and Other Writing
My conclusions are two: First of all, that the infamous duel between Newton and Leibniz - which was only superficially about who had invented the calculus - came back from the dead a hundred years ago to exert remarkable influence over the course of modern science. Secondly, that Leibniz's most fundamental assumption, namely that the universe makes sense and that the human mind has the power to make sense of it and that, consequently, pure metaphysics is no waste of time, remains perhaps the central question of all science. In 1960, Eugene Wigner wrote a paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, in which he addressed the nearly miraculous way in which pure mathematics - seemingly a product of human cognition, and nothing else - predicts the behavior of the physical world. The examples cited by Wigner would have made sense to Leibniz. Leibniz, however, would have been baffled by Wigner's use of the adjective "unreasonable" in the title of his paper. Wigner was a modern: a product of a skeptical age. He was uneasy (or felt obliged to pretend to be uneasy) with the philosophical implications of the way in which the physical world answered to mathematics. This unease could not have been more alien to Leibniz, who, during his long philosophical career, questioned many things that would have been easier to leave alone, but believed, with a kind of medieval serenity, in the reasonableness of Creation.
Mung_{November 26, 2012
November
11
Nov
26
26
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Stepping back a bit from just the earth-moon system, The following paper shows 402 different parameters that must be meet for the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon system in order to support life: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support - Hugh Ross - (References for each parameter) http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part2.pdf also of note for the earth-moon system is the 'suspicious' observability correlation: Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431bornagain77_{November 26, 2012
November
11
Nov
26
26
2012
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

I love the way Cornelius INSISTS on Evolution being just a fact. Explanations can just wait in an orderly line.... to be routinely discredited, of course, with each new evidential discovery. It must be murder for evolutionists to see his repeated, highly-ironic, yet strangely apt insistence upon it, from the stand-point of the 'scientific' establishment's currently-received wisdom.Axel_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

KN:
Whether that is true depends on whether or not “for no reason at all” is a good answer.
"For no reason at all" is certainly not a good reason! So I guess it depends on whether a good answer ought to be reasonable. :)Mung_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

It's commonly thought that atheists have no good answer to the question, "why are the laws of physics the way they are?" Whether that is true depends on whether or not "for no reason at all" is a good answer.Kantian Naturalist_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

"Is the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis somehow problematic?" Yes, 'stellar nucleosynthesis' is extremely problematic for atheistic naturalists: The delicate balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars is truly a work of art. Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated: From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? ... I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Sir Fred also stated: I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Sir Fred Hoyle - "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12 Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements for Life in particular - Atheist Fred Hoyle's conversion to a Deist/Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877 "Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00 Every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist in this universe. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, 'just so happen' to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies 'the universe had us in mind all along'. Even uranium the last naturally occurring 'stable' element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth's crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature's Destiny). The following article and video give a bit deeper insight into the crucial role that individual elements play in allowing life: The Elements: Forged in Stars - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 The Role of Elements in Life Processes http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.phpbornagain77_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

I'm not really sure what relevance Laplace or Buffon have to contemporary cosmology, or just what it is that we're being asked to doubt here. Is the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis somehow problematic?Kantian Naturalist_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply