dimanche 25 septembre 2011

Planetary Evolution. Supposed such.

Latest news from the hobby philosophers who think they reason better than the rest of us because they own the telescopes, a k a astronomers, is that Jupiter once was as close to the Sun as Mars or Asteroid belt is now, and Saturn was just behind. That squeezed the small planets together, explaining why Mars got smaller than Earth. When Jupiter withdrew, and Saturn too, the orbits of telluric planets widened and got elliptic. That explains five out of six mysteries, the one left is how Jupiter and Saturn themselves formed.


Even with for each an orbit of completely stable form, it is a bit belief staggering that planets keep in orbits merely for the balance between solar gravitation and their own previous speed, circle after circle, ellipse after ellipse. No God to keep them there, no angels to run them as men run bicycles, only two forces, mainly, and still the orbit works after billions of turn.

But with orbits changing positions due to other orbits being closer or further ... well, I think there might be something fishy with the reasoning of the scientists. Not necessarily the calculations, but the thinking before you set out to check with calculations, and the thinking of how facts are translated into maths.

The few weeks (back in last millennium) that I did teach mathematics, one guy who had one problem had it not because of any fault in his additions, subtractions, multiplications or divisions, but because he was wrong in a very elementary way of what was to be calculated (it was a realistic, thus fact related, math problem).

In less elementary ways (maybe) this could also be the case with scientists. When it comes to those thinking dating methods are proofs against a young earth, it is the case even in a very elementary way.

This news about "how solar system formed (without a creator)" makes the theories about it being very old and established by brute forces without any creator less worth believing than before, to my mind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

vs Evolution or vs Traducion?

One can actually be a creationist in two senses.

If you believe not only that God created Heaven and Earth, but also each species on earth without needing or otherwise using evolution to make the big differences like between a cat and a dog or a man and a monkey (possibly not yet between horse and donkey or dog and wolf, but I am not sure), you are a Creationist as opposed to an Evolutionist.

If however you believe that unlike each body, conceived from a part of the father's and a part of the mother's seminal cells in the seminal fluids, each soul is created originally and directly by God, you are a creationist. If you believe that each human souls excepting Adam's and possibly Eve's comes from a soul aspect or soul part in one's parents, then you are a Traducianist.

From Latin verb tra-ducere, lead over, lead across.

I am of course a Creationist in both senses. And I believe atheist Evolutionism with materialism to be the ultimate parodic form of Traducianism. If the mind is only an aspect of biology, obviously its qualities would be inherited with other such through the DNA and RNA.

Also, Traducianism in both Christian (mainly Protestant) and Atheist forms tends to overdo the capacity of parents to empathise with children or even their rights over children irrespective of empathy, meaning Traducianism is less likely than Creationism (in this sense) to leave children sufficiently free.

Hans-Georg Lundahl