Impact Theory of Moon's Origin Fails

Institute for Creation Research ^ | October 28, 2013 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[lasereye]

So you’ve looked over their research and you have expertise in those areas I take it.

[lasereye]

What’s TToE? Evolution?

In order for something to change the broad theory there first has to be specific predictions that would falsify the theory if they didn’t pan out. To my knowledge there is no such thing with respect to conventional naturalistic theories of origins.

[freedumb2003]

>>What’s TToE? Evolution?<<

The Theory of Evolution.

>>In order for something to change the broad theory there first has to be specific predictions that would falsify the theory if they didn’t pan out. To my knowledge there is no such thing with respect to conventional naturalistic theories of origins.<<

You were wise to add “to my knowledge.”

No offense, but your knowledge of science is scant. But it does explain why you think that refining the hypotheses somehow undermines the entirety of the theory.

By your reasoning when Einstein found Newton to be wrong on some aspects of his work, Physics would be disproved.

Falsification would be finding a modern horse skeleton at the Jurassic strata.

You also seem to be confused on what a Scientific Theory is. For this, I will not do your homework. Hint: It is NOT a “Hypothesis all grown up.” It has no relationship to a hypothesis at all.

You should either obtain knowledge on that which you opine or refrain.

The Crevo Wars were fought with people who actually DID know Science. Which was more the pity.

Beyond this I sayeth no more.

[lasereye]

I did not say that refining the hypotheses somehow undermines the entirety of the theory. I said that things are presented as fact when they are not.

Falsification would be finding a modern horse skeleton at the Jurassic strata.

Uh no. They find all sorts of things in the "wrong" strata. If they find a modern horse skeleton at the Jurassic strata then it would just call for a refining of the hypothesis or some other way to explain it would be proposed even if totally unsubstantiated. You actually believe the whole thing would be rejected by the scientific world? That's a remarkably naive statement.

In fact “Early” horses have been preserved in strata from the same evolutionary age as several “later” horses.

You also seem to be confused on what a Scientific Theory is.

Well I find that scientific theory 'is (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"'.

I don't know what I said that contradicts that. I don't recall saying anything about a “Hypothesis all grown up.” I'm not sure what the heck that means. I seem to recall saying something about falsifiable, which requirement TToE absolutely fails.

Well it's been nice chatting. Maybe we can continue this discussion some time.