Every New Solution Breeds New Problems

When it comes to theorizing origins in an evolution framework, it’s on going project which never gets resolved. And every time a new solution is added to fix old ones, it is always treated like a major break through in the mainstream media. But it reality, their new solutions breed new problems. Take the moon for example, last time we heard the mystery of the moon had been solved and gave us a whole bunch of speculation which was layered with a whole bunch of jargon to prove it, this year we hear the new view has fixed the one. Confusing isn’t it?

In Astrobiology Magazine, the new theory goes like this…

“For almost 30 years, planetary scientists have been quite happy with this explanation–with one major exception. Although this scenario makes sense when you look at the size of the moon and the physics of its orbit around Earth, things start to break down a little when you compare their isotopic compositions–the geological equivalent of a DNA “fingerprint.” Specifically, Earth and the moon are too much alike.”

“The expectation has long been that the moon should carry the isotopic “fingerprint” of the foreign body, which scientists have named Theia. Because Theia came from elsewhere in the solar system, it probably had a much different isotopic fingerprint than early Earth.

“Now, a team of scientists at the University of Maryland has generated a new isotopic fingerprint of the moon that could provide the missing piece of the puzzle. By zeroing in on an isotope of Tungsten present in both the moon and Earth, the UMD team is the first to reconcile the accepted model of the moon’s formation with the unexpectedly similar isotopic fingerprints of both bodies. The results suggest that the impact of Theia into early Earth was so violent, the resulting debris cloud mixed thoroughly before settling down and forming the moon.”

Questions: What are the ramifications of the Earth being so violent? How long will this model last before another is invented? All this is based on speculation because nobody saw the moon supposedly evolve. The Bible is the only witness for that. So do you call the ever-changing speculation science? Space exploration is science, we can and have learned a great deal from it. This is when you can build unmanned spaceship to explore planets and moons in our solar system and it’s not uncommon for direct evidence to falsify popular theories of evolutionary scientists. It will be fun once an unmanned spacecraft reaches Pluto! Because that will reveal a lot of direct science. So why are countries like the United States spending millions on speculation rather than focusing on direct science? Why are we not focusing more on space exploration rather than materialistic origins that goes around in circles?

Let’s bring more science into our theories rather than using massive amounts of speculation that does science no good.

7 thoughts on “Every New Solution Breeds New Problems

  1. The people who wrote the bible were not around to witness the formation of the moon, FYI.

    Would you at this point like to argue for a flat earth or a geocentric universe, simply because things should always stay they way they were previously understood and it’s less confusing? At least science has the humility to admit when it had something wrong and then go out and find the better answer.

  2. Greetings Ryan,

    How’s trolling working for you these days :) A better answer to what? Something there are trying to explain is not observable nor can it be confirmed. Take planetary evolution for example which in a way is more observable, not to say it’s true but can be tested to a certain degree. It has been widely believed by secular scientists that planets form as gravity causes a disc of dust around a star to slowly conglomerate. NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope revealed that all sun-sized stars and larger in the cluster are missing their planet-forming dust discs, and only a few stars smaller than the sun have them. Not only that, but it has been observed by astronomers that a dusty circumstellar disk, supposedly 10 million years old had evaporated within three years.

    How does a dusk disk disappear so quickly? When you break free of the framework created by consensus it sounds more logical. Stars and planets were created but that is not why they are breaking up so quickly rather it is because of the laws of thermodynamics, which is the cause of the breaking up, not building up. This has also been proven in the labs where scientists who believe in evolution have conducted countless experiments to bring together the dust which has failed instead it breaks up in the end. You cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics so you can keep your planetary evolution theory going because it is not science, however, it does keep going by storytelling. Origins, is not scientific research as I stated before because of its speculation, and it takes away from other valuable research such as space exploration, finding treatments for cancer and other illnesses and so on. Since you are taking this stance I assume origins are more important to you than finding a cure for cancer! Enjoy your day :)

  3. I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Because someone is interested in astronomy they can’t be interested in finding a cure for cancer? Why are those two things mutually exclusive? You’ve done a wonderful job of creating a false dichotomy that doesn’t exist to suit your narrative. “Observational” and “historical” science is also a sneaky little rhetorical device that has no basis in anything other than a desire to maintain an unsupportable religious worldview. Creationists and Christians take full advantage of “historical science” whenever it suits their purposes, then turn around and demonize it when it doesn’t fit their narrative. Pretty convenient, but not at all rooted in reality, only hypocrisy.

    But if you’d like to continue to believe in supernatural explanations that cannot be tested or measured, that’s your business. But do not conflate those beliefs with anything scientific. It’s disingenuous.

  4. Although you never addressed the logic, or lackthereof, in assuming that since science is always learning new things that somehow that translates into it always being wrong or untrustworthy.

  5. Greetings Ryan,

    I had failed to address you bringing up the “flat earth” accusation. This is often used more or less as an insult if one doesn’t go along with a certain viewpoint, for example President Obama used it too when the GOP disagreed with his alternative energy policy.

    “Here’s the sad thing. Lately we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians—a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed—they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future.

    We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail—they must have been founding members of the Flat-Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round.”

    Whoever told you that in Columbus’s day, the norm from the Church was teaching the Earth was flat is a lie. Here is what the Bible says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” Isaiah 40:22. Nobody warned Columbus of a flat earth. But in a book by an American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) who published a book in 1828, entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus we find it here. The book was a mixture of fact and fiction, the fictional part was the majority believing in a “flat earth” from religious people who supposedly quoted the Bible vs a minority of those who believed in a spherical Earth while Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’ when writing the book. So the book is not really a history book and therefore shouldn’t be treated as such. And another thing, for almost 300 years before the time of Christ, Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was round. What they were unsure of was the circumference of the planet. So the “flat earth” concept wasn’t widely used at all by both secular and the Church.

    You say, “science is always learning new things that somehow that translates into it always being wrong…” Firstly you use the term “science” wrong. There is computer science, there is medical science, rocket science, and so on. I know what your using the term for but a play with words doesn’t make your position stronger. Science is a way of pursuing knowledge, there is nothing wrong with that in fact that is a good thing. But Evolution has always sounded better in its storytelling form than it does with direct science.

  6. I don’t remember accusing any specific historical person or entity specifically of believing in a flat earth. Excellent job cherry picking to side step the argument, though.

    Science is science. You can redefine it however you’d like, but it doesn’t make you correct. Again, instead of addressing the argument put forth, all you’ve done is use some not-so-clever wordplay instead of actually formulating any kind of rebuttal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s