Readers,
I am always amazed by Science in two ways.
First, I admire the wonder of it all. Our Universe, our discoveries, and the theories. I love looking at the stars and dreaming about what might be there.
Yet, for all of the discovery, I am amazed when we discover something new, everything ‘old’ is discounted and replaced by the ‘latest ideas.’
This asteroid discovery disproves our previous (current) planet formation theories. ‘Scientists’ will modify hypotheses and start over. But, will students be told of this current mistake in our Theory of Evolution?
Probably not.
What do you think?
Wayne
luvsiesous 
I really liked this blog. It’s hopeful and true. Keep writing, you have a fan. 🙂
Thank you!
I need all the fans I can get.
Wayne
RJ and Tildeb,
You CANNOT have ‘Evolution’ of life without Cosmic Evolution. The two together are ‘Cosmogony.’
Planetary accretion is one of the older, and was considered stable, THEORIES developed within the larger Theory of Evolution (Cosmogony).
Now, a mainstay theory has been disproved. How do YOU handle the change, the change does not affect my faith, or my belief system. But, it does affect yours.
Both of you mention it is an hypothesis, which it was not. Therefore, I ask, “How do YOU handle the change?”
Wayne
I don’t know why YOU insist on YELLING at me. And this cosmogony reference shows your lack of knowledge. Cosmogony is a word used to explain EITHER the formation of the universe OR the beginning of life. Only people like you that can’t seem to handle FACTS smash things together and say, “Look! Since you changed step 3, step 200,004,982 can’t be right!!!”
And thanks for pointing out that there can’t be life on the planet without planets. That was probably the dumbest retort I have heard in a while.
Concrete evidence of Genesis being truth? Anything?
If you would kindly refrain from screaming at me, maybe a civil discourse could be had.
I truly enjoy how you ignored the fact that Genesis has flaws all over it. Thanks for being blind. Now go lead more blind.
Genesis has never been proven wrong.
Show me the 1 mistake in Genesis for each 1,000 mistakes in Evolution.
Are you up to the challenge? And capitilizing a word is not screaming. All caps are, but I can use italics if you would prefer.
Wayne
You put all caps on CANNOT, THEORIES, and YOU(twice). Do you not look at your own posts? Do you know what ‘all caps’ means? That is proof enough. You don’t even know what you are saying.
Genesis is wrong as a literal work. 1) Creating day and night before stars(sun). 1)Creating the moon as a source of light. 3) Order of creation differs between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Shall I continue? The firmament idea kills me. Apparently God didn’t know the sun was a star.
Surely you noticed.
I don’t intend to respond any more until you respond to my queries posted before. You seem to be picking and choosing what to respond to.
RJ,
Thank you for you discussion.
You wrote dozens of questions which are clear in your mind, but not so clear to me.
Rather than deal with countless questions, I will address a couple of your questions, if I miss your important question bring that one up by itself.
First, Genesis has never been a literal work, it is an historical writing.
Ironically, your comment about creating night and day before the stars is interesting …. First, God created darkness then light …. and the Big Bang theory verifies that …. darkness came first (about 1/100th of a second IIRC) then came light. Like many things in Genesis, people today expect God to say things modern Physics … but that would not have made since to brick makers and sheepherders ….
How are we so far?
Wayne
Life changes over time is a fact, Wayne. This is evolution in action. Deal with it. Our explanation of how this occurs (by the mechanisms of mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection) produces therapies, applications and technologies that works for everyone everywhere all the time. This explanation is called evolution. Deal with it.
Now you can claim cosmogony has something to do with how life changes over time but until you can show how changes in population allele frequency have some essential connection to our understanding of how asteroids form, then you’re rambling like a delusional freak convinced that it is the tin foil hat you wear (religion) that really does block out the control rays (knowledge) from aliens (stand-ins for those evil and conspiratorial evolutionary ‘scientists’ you fear so much) under whose control you think control the rest of us suffer from.
There you go again ….
Change over time is not evolution. There is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The previous results in changes in a population. Never has any micro-evolution been shown to affect change to macro-evolution (outside of lab experiments making frankestein creatures.)
Evolution is a part of Cosmogony. I do not know what your objection to that is. Can you tell me why you object to scientific terminology?
I object to your twisting of the meaning. Where do you get your definition? It is the science of the formation of the cosmos. It has been skewed by some people to include humans. This is incorrect. I object to this. Much like I would object to any misuse of any term. It is similar, sort of, to saying gravity holds atoms together.
Evolution is a part of Cosmogony. Cosmology is cosmic evolution and is also a subset of Cosmogony.
Same word…different world. I belong to a world where definitions come from dictionaries of authority. Where in your world does it mean evolution? It is like saying medicine is a subset of astronomy because we live among stars.
Maybe look up irony. How can what I said be ironically interesting?
How is Genesis historical but not literal. I suppose that means you can make it mean what you want based on how you feel. Your cherry picking is annoying. You claim things are not clear so you can’t answer. That feeling you get, when things are not clear, is caused by you being wrong.
Flood length in Genesis is either 40, 150, or 47, or 314 days. I guess a herder wouldn’t care historically as long as God’s point was made. ‘Do bad things and I will kill your family…babies included.’
Also it is ‘a historical’, not ‘an historical’.
I yield to your total lack of knowledge. Please, stop responding and I will stop posting to your page.
It is ‘an,’ unless you pronounce the ‘h’ hard, then it is ‘a.’
Two different rules in English for the same thing … and you wonder why Genesis is difficult? You read in Genesis English, but it was written in Hebrew.
There were different times for different events during the flood. Not different lengths of the flood. Such as how long it rained, when the bird went out, when it came back with a branch, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony?s=t
Literal versus historical …. Literal is a modern point of view that cannot mean the same thing to someone who believed ‘the gods’ could walk with men.
The Jews had just left Egypt, and they had been taught for years that Pharaoh was ‘god.’
Historical is history. Just as we have a history of the Civil War, that does not mean that we actually know the number of dead at the battle of Shiloh, rather history books ‘repeat’ the number that people believe to be true.
Genesis in places is not being ‘literal,’ Genesis is being accurate. The Jews of that day understood what it meant to them.
Ironically, even though it had a specific meaning to the Jews, Genesis still has a significant meaning to the modern world ….
Ironically, because very, very, very few books over 300 years old can be applied to the modern world.
Now. Either Moses was a literary genius like Shakespeare, or he had help.
IMHO.
Wayne
Or are you discussing a different word?
Macroevolution is microevolution plus time, you numbskull. The distinction is a false boundary inserted by the religious to try to account the fact of evolution. No such boundary exists except in your mind. As both a fact and a theory evolution has nothing to say about cosmogony. Your insistence that it does again resides solely and wholly in your mind. Someday perhaps you’ll appreciate that your mind and reality are not synonyms. I will gird my loins for that momentous day.
Either drop your stupid personal attacks, or find yourself someone else to haunt.
You are an idiot.
I did not define Cosmology, dictionaries that…. maybe you could read a little before you post more of your blather.
Wayne
Quite right, Wayne; I am an idiot… for thinking that your mind could be cracked open just enough to let a little light into its dark and ignorant recesses. My mistake. Obviously my attempts are deciphered by you to be blather and I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe it to be so because it stands contrary to your own assumptions and comprehension. That’s why I usually include the path of reasoning I use to demonstrate where your own has left the tracks of reailty. Again, my bad. Please forgive my audacity that you might possibly be respectful of what’s true. I satnd corrected and shall bother you no more.
Wow ….
We finally reach agreement. That was too easy.
But, I will appreciate the break from reading your constant insults of my meager (in your view) intellectual capacity.
Thank you for slowing down on the personal attacks.
Wayne
It mentioned the evolution of the solar system, not life. I am curious as to why you think the evolution of the solar system would change our idea of the formation of life.
Also, it is curious to me why you think a change in a theory means you throw it all out instead of adjusting it? Just because someone figured out the planets went around the sun didn’t mean the theory gravity went out the window. They didn’t throw out the old model of planet formation, just added a twist they didn’t see before.
Just wondering.
RJ,
Great questions.
First, Cosmogony is the ‘Scientific’ theory of Origin, while Genesis is the Biblical theory. They can both be different views of the same thing, or they can both be wrong, or one is right and the other wrong.
But, I am always amazed at how a ‘Scientist’ can claim they found a ‘typo’ in a 3500 year old story and throw the whole thing out, but major changes in the modern theory of Cosmogony and it is just a simple typo, don’t worry about it.
And that is my biggest concern, we treat the two theories very differently. Cosmogony, Evolution, is treated as the ‘holy grail,’ and Genesis is treated as totally wrong. But, the truth is, Genesis has never been shown to be ‘wrong.’ Evolution, Cosmogony, has been shown to be wrong many thousands of times.
So, I use Evolution’s rule book as it is applied to Genesis.
Thank you for your questions, hope I cleared some things up.
Wayne
I am confused. You are saying that, when there is non proof that a god created the universe, no concrete evidence of the god, that is proof? I think having faith when there is no proof is awesome. But as soon as you say you can prove god, you don’t have faith. I find it strange that, because we learn more and apply that to padt knowledge that you want to throw it out, but when there is no evidence, you keep that as rock solid. (I will not get into the millions of bits of data that prove evolution of life, and just stay with the ‘faith isn’t proof’ theory)
Wayne, what article are you reading to lead you to accusing some kind of change to the Theory of Evolution? And what’s with the scare quote around ‘scientists’?
Hypotheses are modified ALL THE TIME. That’s why they’re hypotheses, you numbskull! And this article mentions nothing about changing our planet formation hypothesis; it offers evidence that our hot and cold asteroid formation needs work. That’s what science does: it looks to reality to see if our current explanations hold or need to be reworked. Only the mentally deficient – or those who can’t wrap their little heads around understanding the Theory of Evolution – would assume that all our explanations ought to be correct when first proposed. That’s why we classify these explanations as working hypotheses; we should expect change as more data is gathered so that our level of confidence can be appropriately applied. And the highest possible confidence in ‘scientific’ lingo is ‘theory’. Someday, I hope you’ll grasp the notion.
Thank you for pointing out how all ‘Scientists’ are numbskulls ….
I really have to remember that every time they change their theory of evolution, they are proving you right – they are DUMB …. and cannot wrap their heads around such a simple theory.
Thanks
Wayne
Please show me where I said all scientists are numbskulls.
Right . I didn’t. I called you a numbskull for failing to understand that scientific hypotheses are constantly being changed and why this is a good thing in figuring out what deserves greater or lesser confidence. You missed the point… again.
Wayne, why do you feel you need to make stuff up and pretend others said this kind of garbage? Why can’t you deal with issues straight up, with intellectual integrity and honesty? Why the need to lie, to misrepresent, to create straw men arguments? There’s a commandment against doing this, you know. You should pay attention and try to figure out why you continue to empower these kinds of deceits. The practice is not a virtue.
Why can’t you look in the mirror and see that you are closed minded?
Calling me names, because I understand and reject Evolutionary theory …. logically, that is the same as my calling you names for rejecting Jesus Christ.
I re-wrote your straw man, but now you want to blame me?
Do you think you will ever convince me by attacking me?
Wayne
I’m not closed-minded. I called you a numbskull because you presented an hypothesis undergoing revision as if were a theory – not just being revised once but many times. This is not true. This is equivalent to calling a unicycle a jet plane and complaining that the operation of the unicycle demonstrates the inadequacies of the jet. They operate at completely different levels. Your criticisms of evolution are equally out of sync with reality, with how science operates, with how we apply confidence. Because I’ve told you before that you don’t understand evolutionary theory, your misunderstanding of it is not an indication of its hypothetical weaknesses. To continue to suggest otherwise when you obviously don’t understand the difference between an hypothesis and a theory – and are corrected several times on this fact – means that you are deserving of being labeled intellectually challenged. I used a rather innocuous term for this thick-skull barrier you continue to demonstrate between understanding something and legitimately criticizing its understanding. Because you don’t understand in spite of repeated corrections is not an excuse to then lie and be so childish as to then try to blame me for causing you to lie; smarten up and learn, for crying out loud. Leave the lying behind and start to grasp the fact that your lack of learning pollutes your opinions. You can clear this up if you are willing to respect reality.
You are very close minded.
You know very little about Cosmology, or Cosmogony.
Much less ‘Evolution.’
But, that is ok. I do not need to lie, only focus upon your failings …. until you get past your name calling, you will never convince anyone of your great intellect, much less your broken argument.
Wayne