Rewriting How the Solar System Formed

_{Gil Dodgen

November 15, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

I work for an aerospace R&D company. One of our projects was functioning as a subcontractor for the recent Stardust mission. You can read about it here:

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

As a result of the data collected from the Stardust mission, previous assumptions about the formation of the solar system are being overturned.

Today, the Stardust program manager copied all the Stardust research contributors with a congratulatory note that included the following comment:

A week and a half ago the science team met — 120 of the more than 200 scientists around the world working on the particles brought back, and they are already rewriting the texts on how the solar system formed, with the discovery of refractory minerals that require very high temperatures to form and were somehow ejected from very near the sun to the outer reaches of the solar system in the Kuiper belt way beyond the orbit of Pluto.

If, in a hard science like this, previous assumptions can be reexamined and even overturned, how about the assumptions of a soft, philosophical “science” like Darwinism?

Comments

I don't know if it's worth making a scientific point, but here goes. All the Stardust mission found was some particles containing minerals such as olivine which condense at very high temperatures. These would have been more common in the inner solar system, so assuming they formed there, a possible mechanism would be that they were ejected by the Sun's gravity to the outer solar system. This gravitational slingshot effect is well-known; Jupiter and Neptune are responsible for flinging small stuff out of the region of the planets. This is what NASA's press release shows. NASA understandably wants to show the world how its research produces surprising new results, but to say theories have been overthrown and textbooks need to be rewritten is ridiculous. To further take this as evidence supporting creationism is even more ridiculous.rational_{November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Dave, I just got an e-mail from Wallace Thornhill; we corresponded regarding the recent storm on Saturn, and here's his essay: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=a0fu5dte
In a keynote address at the Marshall Space Flight Center in March 1986, Hannes AlfvÃƒÂ©n complained that the most used textbooks in astrophysics do not treat important concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits. "Students using these [astrophysics] textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these [concepts], in spite of the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of the astrophysicists. The billion-dollar telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Twenty years later, this has not been done. The inertia of institutional specialization infects modern science and education. Astrophysicists with inappropriate and narrow training remain in control. Meanwhile the puzzles facing the space sciences multiply by the day and falsifiable predictions (the best test of a good theory) are rareÃ¢â‚¬â€and even more rarely successful. This contrasts starkly with the Electric Universe model, which recognizes AlfvÃƒÂ©n's pioneering insights and has many successful predictions to its credit, including this one on Saturn.
I think that the fact that the double helix is a double helix may in fact be due to the scalable electrical effect, i.e., the braiding discussed on a "cosmic" scale. For those who prefer "TV", this DVD is a good introduction: http://www.mikamar.biz/thunderbolts-product.htmP. Phillips_{November 20, 2006
November
11
Nov
20
20
2006
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Regarding Zachriel, Dr. Spetner points out that neo-Darwinists are like [trial] lawyers; they excel in "squidding" and argument; facts and predictions, however, are a different matter. ;) As Spetner illustrated, the mathematics of probability against NDE are even greater than Dr. Dembski's "probability bound". I agree with Hogan's remarks here: http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288__10.htm
Mathematical WorldsÃ¢â‚¬â€ and This Other One Mathematics is purely deductive. When something is said to be mathematically "proved," it means that the conclusion follows rigorously and necessarily from the axioms. Of itself, a mathematical system can't show anything as being "true" in the sense of describing the real world. All the shelves of volumes serve simply to make explicit what was contained in the assumptions. If some mathematical procedures happen to approximate the behavior of certain real-world phenomena over certain ranges sufficiently closely to allow useful predictions to be made, then obviously that can be of immense benefit in gaining a better understanding of the world and applying that knowledge to practical ends. But the only measure of if, and if so to what degree, a mathematical process does in fact describe reality can be actual observation. Reality is in no way obligated to mimic formal systems of symbol manipulation devised by humans.
P. Phillips_{November 20, 2006
November
11
Nov
20
20
2006
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Hello, Dave (I hope I don't remind you of Hal 9000). I agree with your statements regarding NDE; I don't have answers. I think both Drs. Dembski and Behe make compelling arguments to anyone who has an open mind. If Dr. Dembski reads this, in light of his recent essay on Theodicy and the nature of human inquiry into theology and science, may I recommend this work, Aristotle's Children . In fact perhaps other readers, including yourself, will find it of merit. The author found to his surprise that the Catholic hierarchy actually encouraged, initially, study of Aristotle, and the tension we find now between "science" and religion did not exist. Strife, of course, in other forms did. http://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Children-Christians-Rediscovered-Illuminated/dp/0151007209 http://www.curledup.com/aristotl.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_14_121/ai_n6145305 In any event, for those interested in plasma cosmology, a new book is going to be published. http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm (Note the dascott - no relation, I assume!) ;) I agree with Aristotle and not Plato regarding mathematics as not being the causes of nature. May everyone, no matter what your beliefs are, have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving!P. Phillips_{November 20, 2006
November
11
Nov
20
20
2006
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

LOL Awwwww... Zachriel is waving his hands madly trying to somehow dispute my contention that NDE has no predictive ability. Unfortunately, no matter how much hand waving he does, here is what NDE predicts: A species may change to a new species, or it may not change and become extinct, or it may not change and not become extinct, but if it does change, the theory doesn't predict how or when it will change. Yeah boy, that's some kind of predictive power alrighty. The Church Burnin' Ebola Boys (TM, pat.pending) are a ever ending source of amusement! :razz: Prove me wrong, Zach, and make a prediction. Drive a stake in the ground. Put your neck on the chopping block. Show me da money! DaveScot_{November 20, 2006
November
11
Nov
20
20
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

P Phillips all ideas in the sciences must be judged by their predictive ability Since NDE theory describes an unpredictable, unrepeatable process, how should it be judged? It's really weird. Random mutations, filtered or not by natural selection, are what NDE says is the source of variation. Random by definition means unpredictable. So if the theory begins by admitting it has no predictive power then what possible good is it? Yet they call it the unifying principle of all biology. Bull! Commonality in architecture at the microscopic level is the unifying principle in all of biology.DaveScot_{November 19, 2006
November
11
Nov
19
19
2006
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

The problem, I believe, in current "cosmology", physics, and astronomy is the subordination of everything to mathematics. As Aristotle wrote in his Metaphysics :
These people are like the old-fashioned Homeric scholars, who see small resemblances but neglect great ones. Some say that there are many such cases, e.g. that the middle strings are represented by nine and eight, and that the epic verse has seventeen syllables, which is equal in number to the two strings, and that the scansion is, in the right half of the line nine syllables, and in the left eight. And they say that the distance in the letters from alpha to omega is equal to that from the lowest note of the flute to the highest, and that the number of this note is equal to that of the whole choir of heaven. It may be suspected that no one could find difficulty either in stating such analogies or in finding them in eternal things, since they can be found even in perishable things. But the lauded characteristics of numbers, and the contraries of these, and generally the mathematical relations, as some describe them, making them causes of nature, seem, when we inspect them in this way, to vanish; for none of them is a cause in any of the senses that have been distinguished in reference to the first principles. In a sense, however, they make it plain that goodness belongs to numbers, and that the odd, the straight, the square, the potencies of certain numbers, are in the column of the beautiful. For the seasons and a particular kind of number go together; and the other agreements that they collect from the theorems of mathematics all have this meaning. Hence they are like coincidences. For they are accidents, but the things that agree are all appropriate to one another, and one by analogy. For in each category of being an analogous term is foundÃ¢â‚¬â€as the straight is in length, so is the level in surface, perhaps the odd in number, and the white in colour.
http://www.classicallibrary.org/aristotle/metaphysics/book14.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060323stardust.htm
Of course, it was just a computer simulation, and no doubt the input can be adjusted enough to achieve the desired results. The real problem is that the entire framework for rescuing the standard Ã¢â‚¬Å“big pictureÃ¢â‚¬Â is arbitrary. The reasoning begins with an electrically neutral universe, despite the rapidly accumulating evidence of electricity at every observable scale. It then seeks to create regional electric and magnetic fields through the paltry force of gravity. It thus keeps gravity in the driverÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s seat, and saves the cosmologistsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ underlying equations for another day. But it requires them to ignore what the best experts on plasma and electricity in space have been telling us for too long now: Bi-polar nebulas show every expected feature of plasma discharge. The discharge is energized by vastly larger electric fields than could be generated by gravity acting on such a minimal scale. It is electric currents threading through the galaxy that provide the observed nebula energies, not mere particles of dust in a diffuse local cloud. The most compelling message of Stardust, the point many theorists may be eager to overlook, is that all ideas in the sciences must be judged by their predictive ability. On this ultimate test, modern comet theory has failed completely. Not just on a few ideas about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Oort CloudÃ¢â‚¬Â, but on every fundamental principle. And if someone tells you this statement is excessive ask him to enumerate just two or three discoveries about comets since the beginning of the space age that the accepted models predicted. The only answer to this conundrum is to allow for the fair consideration of another vantage point, one that has not failed. Over the past ten years, the electric theorist Wallace Thornhill has stated scientific predictions again and again. The predictions have held up extraordinarily well.
P. Phillips_{November 19, 2006
November
11
Nov
19
19
2006
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Gil, to cool, makes me wonder how many more collaborative research projects await us in the future. I was aware of SETI, but not this. Over 20 million searches performed by @home users!Michaels7_{November 17, 2006
November
11
Nov
17
17
2006
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

platolives, Huh? The abstract of Trevor and Abel support LucID's point. Self-Organization does not exist without rules. Who creates rules? "Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings." What are their conclusions? That we are random, self-ordered events? That we as life forms are not organized? That our lives are unintentional gambits of an explosion rapidly expanding in the middle of nowhere? That explosions create laws, rules and animated life forms instead of killing life? Of course, now I see your point... smiles.Michaels7_{November 17, 2006
November
11
Nov
17
17
2006
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

#1 blog-lucID, As an Ockhamist, I won't multiply something into what it is not, Trevors and Abel wouldn't either...below is the abstract.... Luc, you need to read Trevors and Abel-July 2006, "cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize" Title: "Self-organization vs. Self-ordering Events in Life-origin Models" by David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors Accepted 5 July 2006. ......Abstract: "Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural Ã¢â‚¬Å“lawÃ¢â‚¬Â propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or Ã¢â‚¬Å“computational haltingÃ¢â‚¬Â. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot Ã¢â‚¬Å“organizeÃ¢â‚¬Â itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Self-organizationÃ¢â‚¬Â is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Self-organizationÃ¢â‚¬Â provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“self-organizationÃ¢â‚¬Â erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information."platolives_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

jmcd, maybe you are making the argument that while it is unlikely for anyone to win the lottery twice, it is actually fairly likely that someone somewhere will win the lottery twice. But ID is talking about 1) what is the likelihood that a lottery will exist in a given universe and then 2) what is the likelihood that one person will win the lottery twice.Collin_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

"You kind of run into an unscalable wall in explaining things when you see non physical causes for something. " Well- I know some people have a hard time dealing with this, but a great manythings eventually lead to unscalable walls. People, today, seem to think that an answer can be had for everything and that it is science that will provide that answer. Science, like anything else, will always run into a dead end, because unless you're a super-entity with a superintellect, you can't know everything, which means there will be much you don't and will never know. On the point of non-physical causes. I'd think that everything is physical. No matter what we posit- from God to the boogeman, to ghosts. Sort of like natural/super-natural. If natural is merely stuff that comes from nature, wouldn't everything come from it, thus it'd all be natural and the "supernatural" is simply a term we use for the natural that we don't fully understand?JasonTheGreek_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

JMCD, I think you have conflated ID with Christian creation science and you implied that if one believes that God created the solar system then one cannot really be a scientist. Is this what you are saying?Collin_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

JMCD: I recognize that there are a multitude of fortunate coincidnces that allow for our planet to be privileged, but there are billions upon billions upon billions of stars. And guess what? The factors outweigh the stars. JMCD: That one or a few or many of them are Ã¢â‚¬Å“privilegedÃ¢â‚¬Â is not in the least bit surprising. Actually once you know and understand the factors it is quite surprising in a non-ID scenario. JMCD: At any rate I can virtually guarntee that no one in the Stardust crowd of astronomers would put forth the notion that anything but the physical laws of the universe formed our solar system. And if that were true we would expect most solar systems to be similar. However we do not see that at all. JMCD: If they did then there would be very little point in doing what they are doing. You kind of run into an unscalable wall in explaining things when you see non physical causes for something. In such a case science becomes incapable of answering any questions and theology is your only friend. Then it is a good thing that design is a physical process. JMCD: The fine tuning arguments predate Christ and do not change an iota by introducing the weight of the electron. There is much that predates Jesus, but that doesn't mean sheer-dumb-luck is a valid explanation for our being.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." - Max Planck during his Nobel acceptance speech
JMCD: There are obviously a multitude of things that have to be just right to reach any eventuality. The only thing that makes fine tuning arguments sound impressive is that they are concerned with the only eventuality that matters to us. From TPP:
Imagine youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re taken captive by some powerful aliens, like Q on [I]Star Trek: Generations[/I], a group of highly intelligent if utterly obnoxious beings who exist as a sort of unified community called the Q continuum. Among their many qualifications, the Q can travel back in time. In the story weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re concocting, imagine that the Q transport you back to the moment of the Big Bang. After arriving, one Q takes you to a spacious room, with a large, complicated device on one side, adorned with scores of enormous dials not unlike the dials on a Master padlock. On closer inspection, you notice that every knob is inscribed with numbered lines. And above each knob are titles like Ã¢â‚¬Å“Gravitational Force ConstantÃ¢â‚¬Â, Electromagnetic Force ConstantÃ¢â‚¬Â, Strong Nuclear Force ConstantÃ¢â‚¬Â, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“Weak Nuclear Force ConstantÃ¢â‚¬Â. You ask Q what the machine is, and after some snide and dismissive comments about the feebleness of the human mind, he tells you that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a Universe-Creating Machine. According to Q, the great collective Q continuum used it to create out universe. The machine has a viewing screen that allows the Q to preview what different settings will produce before they press Start. Without going into detail about it works, Q explains that the dials must all be set precisely, or the Universe-Creating Machine will spit out a worthless piece of junk ( as shown on its preview screen), like a universe that collapses on itself within a few seconds into a single black hole or drifts along indefinitely as a lifeless hydrogenated soup. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Well how precisely do the knobs have to be set?Ã¢â‚¬Â you ask. With some embarrassment, Q tells you that, so far, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve only found one combination that actually produces a universe even mildly habitable- namely, our own. Ã¢â‚¬Å“SoÃ¢â‚¬Â, you ask, Ã¢â‚¬Å“do you mean that there are only two habitable universes, the one the Q exists in, and ours that you have created?Ã¢â‚¬Â In a volatile mixture of anger a chagrin, he admits, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Um, no, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just this one.Ã¢â‚¬Â This arouses your suspicions: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Now, what sort of bootstrapping magic allowed you to create the universe you live in?Ã¢â‚¬Â Crushed by your keen command of logic and highly sensitive baloney detector, Q finally admits, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Well, we didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t actually find the right combination ourselves. In fact, the machine doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exactly belong to us. We merely found it, with the dials already set. The machine had done its work before we arrived. Ever since then, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been looking for another set of dial combinations to create another habitable universe, but alas, so far we havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t found one. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re certain that other habitable universes are possible, though, so we are still looking.Ã¢â‚¬Â This fanciful story illustrates one of the most startling discoveries of the last century: the universe, as described by its physical laws and constants, seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.
Joseph_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

jcmd: There are obviously a multitude of things that have to be just right to reach any eventuality Right, but when all the other "eventualities" are similar in that they can't support complex life, and yet there is only one small target space that not only supports complex life but also allows them to become scientists, and that small target space just so happened to be actualized in the creation of the cosmos, the argument takes on a little more weight. It is either ID or MW, which I believe Sal points out still points to ID.Atom_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Joseph I recognize that there are a multitude of fortunate coincidnces that allow for our planet to be privileged, but there are billions upon billions upon billions of stars. That one or a few or many of them are "privileged" is not in the least bit surprising. Especially when there are very physical reasons for all these happy coincidences. At any rate I can virtually guarntee that no one in the Stardust crowd of astronomers would put forth the notion that anything but the physical laws of the universe formed our solar system. If they did then there would be very little point in doing what they are doing. You kind of run into an unscalable wall in explaining things when you see non physical causes for something. In such a case science becomes incapable of answering any questions and theology is your only friend. The fine tuning arguments predate Christ and do not change an iota by introducing the weight of the electron. The circular reasoning is not going to impress anyone that does not want to believe in the conclusion prior to the argument. There are obviously a multitude of things that have to be just right to reach any eventuality. The only thing that makes fine tuning arguments sound impressive is that they are concerned with the only eventuality that matters to us.jmcd_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

JMCD: As far as I know no one is challenging the idea of solar syatem formation by saying that intelligent agency was directly involved in the creation of our solar system. That would be such a radical departure from how we understand and observe nature that an extremely compelling case would have to be made. Please read "The Privileged Planet" for such an extremely compelling case. JMCD: Until we have those answers, or at least likely answers I do not know why we would be questioning current theories. Seeing that all currently accepted theories are just variations of laws acting on lucky events, cosmic collisions and atomic accidents, I can see plenty of reasons to question them. JMCD: No one is really challenging the overall idea of evolution, but there are several ideas as to what mechanisms are involved and to what degree those mechanisms are responsible for evolutionary change. Thank you.Joseph_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Designed Jacob, Of course, hydroplate theory describes olivine in comets as well. The sun isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the only high-temperature mass in the solar system, after all. Mr. Cordova?
Yes of course, hydroplate theory predicted the existence of Earth-like minerals in meteors along with biotic material. See my argumentation about it here at KCFS: Brown's Predictions Misrepresented (about Comets) I pointed out we have the problem of bacteria in 4.5 billion year-old-rocks: here It is presumed solar system evolution is a done deal. Well, there are major problems from the standpoint of classical mechanics. It may be time for a paradigm shift. Salscordova_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

I would like to see an elaboration on "rewriting the texts on how the solar system formed." It is a question as to how those heavier elements were found so far out. They could be from other stars or they could have been carried out by a comet, or any number ofother scenarios. Until we have those answers, or at least likely answers I do not know why we would be questioning current theories. As to why can this be questioned and not Darwinism: There are plenty of challenges to traditional Darwinism. No one is really challenging the overall idea of evolution, but there are several ideas as to what mechanisms are involved and to what degree those mechanisms are responsible for evolutionary change. As far as I know no one is challenging the idea of solar syatem formation by saying that intelligent agency was directly involved in the creation of our solar system. That would be such a radical departure from how we understand and observe nature that an extremely compelling case would have to be made.jmcd_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Check out the Stardust: Return To Earth podcast at: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/podcast.html#060110 I was interested in this comment by one of the Stardust scientists: "No one has seen this material. In this case, the only one who has seen it is God." You can be a Stardust researcher! Read about it here: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ Stardust@home is an interactive Internet-based search for interstellar dust in the Stardust aerogel collector. You will use a "virtual microscope" on your home computer to perform the search.
The discoverer of an interstellar dust particle will appear as a co-author on scientific papers by the Stardust@home collaboration announcing the discovery of the particle. The discoverer will also have the privilege of naming the particle!
GilDodgen_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Designed Jacob, This is so weird. I found a rock years ago in a mountain creek of New Mexico one morning not far from my camp site, on the way to Taos. Looking up olivine online, maybe that's what I got. It was crystaline, green attached to a pocket in a larger rock. It caught my eye under the flowing water, glowing a brilliant green as the morning light rays hit it. I never did find out what it was. But it looks similar to http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/olivine/olivine2.jpg this sample. Hmm! Cool... I need to see if it is in fact olivine. That'll be funny after all these years.Michaels7_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

From the article: One mineral found in the material brought back by Stardust is olivine, a primary component of the green sand found on some Hawaiian beaches. Of course, hydroplate theory describes olivine in comets as well. The sun isn't the only high-temperature mass in the solar system, after all. Mr. Cordova?Designed Jacob_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

It actually takes an honest person, who is willing to loose something -like pride and university grants - to re-examine what they believe in. It's more than that, I think. Once they set aside Darwinism, they will have to set aside accidentalism, then materialism. Then they have to start asking the big questions all over i.e. why are they here/what is their purpose which may be terrifying to them. So it becomes a religious war, and they are always nasty.tribune7_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

lucID, Yep, questioning everything you have worked for throughout your career can be tough. It takes a lot more courage and guts than most can summon from inside themselves. As to the Startdust project, it has something in common with the origins and development of life. It is not just a discovery of the laws of nature that presumably are constant and testable at all times and places. Rather, it is a study of how what is came to be. In other words, it is forensic science, as is NDE/ID. As such, it is far more muddy, with all sorts of potential factors that may interact in all sorts of possible ways in a variety of chronological pathways, potentially. Therefore it becomes a game of excluding certain pathways, and identifying pathways that, given the empirical data available at a given point in time, appear to be most probable. So, when we get down to it, we take a look at NDE -- it basically restricts the causation factors and attempts to force-fit a "known" process into a particular chronology. With a whole lot of questions begging to be answered, and not just filling in the holes. ID, on the other hand, if I understand it correctly, does not limit itself to only certain factors, it is open to all -- chance, necessity, and intelligent design. Logically there is no reason why different factors cannot apply to different situations to explain the living organisms we find today.Ekstasis_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

I always thought the bedrock of science was experiment and the underlying assumption that the results are governed by unchangable laws. (and thus repeatable) Since when did Darwinism become the bedrock of science? Did science start from Darwin?WinglesS_{November 16, 2006
November
11
Nov
16
16
2006
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Dammit when will this ID pseudo-science end??!! Darwinism is not only the bed-rock of all science today, but everything linked to science owes it's discovery and origins to Neo-Darwinian evolution. It's fact plain and simple, says so here in my RD signed biology text-book -Sarcasm Intended- Seriously folks Getting the Darwinians to admit that they have a 'soft' scienctific philosophy is like trying to get a schizophrenic to turn in his crayons (pretty apt analogy actually!) There's just too much at stake for them. It actually takes an honest person, who is willing to loose something -like pride and university grants - to re-examine what they believe in. And when you've been playing fast and loose with the rules and evidence for so long it just becomes too embarrassing.lucID_{November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply