Perhaps some Evolutionists, (or even creationists;) can help me with this...

Being that there are people here that would probably be much more knowledgable than me on the subject, I figured I'd ask this here in the Misc. section. Thank-you in advance for your thoughts.To keep the post short, the topic that my question is on is the Earth-Moon Formation theories. A short link to a page that sums it up;
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/.../lect/moon/moon_formation.htmlQuestion 1: If you look the last line reads; .."however, the question is not completely settled and many details remain to the accounted for."I am trying to find out what parts of this are 'not completely settled', and what are some of the 'many details remain to be accounted for'?At least three of these theories are required here in NY to be taught;"...three theories of Earth-moon system formation: Sister theory-Both formed from gas and dust at same time. Daughter theory-Collision with Earth caused big chunk to break off and form satellite. Capture theory- Moon was originally asteroid-like and was captured in Earth's gravitational pull."Question 1A: The second part of my question is, can you give me your explainations of 'theory'. I have read definitions, and of course I understand what it is conveying to mean...But I mean, why are each of these still called a theory on their own? Are they each labeled as theory seperatly just because there is another explaination of which that is commonly accepted? The collision theory seems to be the most widely accepted theory. Is a theory considered a fact that *may* be true?? Can the collision theory be considered as a fact that could be true? So is this what 'theory' is?The sun is out there. = Fact. We can know facts about what things are made up, how they look, act, and such, but everything after that falls into...'theory'..I presume..?Hope someone can help be get a better grip on thisTheory: (Webster's Dictionary)1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in
speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice;
hypothesis; speculation.P.S. I am, perhaps obviously, expecting help from the evelutionists here, I guess, but I will gladly, honestly, consider the views of creationists as well,(If it's not just simply, 'it's because God made it so. Thank you in advance for any replies.

A theory is a model that explains observations and makes predictions. Multiple theories can explain the same data; you don't know which is more accurate until you're able to confirm some testable predictions. Sometimes even then multiple theories can explain the same thing.Newton's theories of physics still explain the motion of billiard balls, for instance. Einstein's theory of relativity will also explain their motion.I don't know much about the moon, but I do know what is a theory, and what is not.

Of the 3 theories you listed I'm pretty sure (but no expert) that the sister theory has fallen out of favour because of the evidence. The density and material of the moon doesn't fit it.The capture theory was, as I understand, always a problem because of the orbital dynamics.At present the one that has consensus favour is the collesion one. I don't understand "At least three of these theories are required here in NY to be taught; ". That seems nonsensical. First, I'm not sure it is super important to the study of the solar system that the details of the formation of one moon be taught. Second, it would, today, only make sense to teach the one with the most evidence that fits what is known. I don't get "required" there at all.added by edit:
In addtion, asking an "evolutionist" about the formation of the moon seems a bit silly. What would a biologist know about the physics involved?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2003]

Thanks Crash,So, my question now is, what happens after you do know that '..one is more accurate' than the rest, when can it be considered be only *pausible* reason? The collision theory is the most accepted one, but when/or under what more circumstances can it become 'fact', as other things about space and science are considered. Do the other theories need to be completely 'dis-proven' in order for the remaining one to be considered, say, 'the only plausible reason'? As is said about other things.Or is it ultimately a matter of majority-opinion combined with a 'good enough' arguement that will ultimately get a 'theory' closer to 'fact'? You may know, there is a group out there, the flat Earth Society, I believe? These guys, some suppossed well educated people, who actually say they still believe that the Earth is flat! From their prospective, my views of a round earth can be considered my theory...right? So does that really mean that the round Earth is a theory? Is this a valid counter-argument that they can give me? Or no, because, obviously, many, many more people 'believe' the Earth is round, and have much, much more evidence or theories for it?-Thanks for the help!

Not ever. I think you're confusing the terms "fact" and "theory". The moon exists, that's a fact. It can be independantly verified any time you like. It orbits the Earth, also factual.The explanation of how it orbits the Earth, the model that explains its motion, is a theory. Theories make predictions. (Like, it predicts where the moon will be 1 hour from now, or something.) Facts don't make predictions.Theory is as accepted as it gets in science, because the conclusions of science are always tentative. That means that we change our minds when we get new data that doesn't fit the old theory. Yes. My best friend was a member in college. It was a joke, mostly.The reason we know that these people are wrong is because their theory doesn't explain the data. Ergo we can reject it. Again, you're mistaken about what "theory" means. It doesn't mean "a guess that might be wrong." It means "a model that explains data from observations." Calling something a "theory" has nothing to do with how sure you are about it. Theory is as sure as it gets.So no, it's not a valid counter-argument. It's just a statement of fact. The round Earth is a model that explains data. Therefore it's a theory.

I think that the moon formation theories are reaching the point where the others (especially sister theory) have been demonstrated to *not* match the observations. If that is the case then the remaining theory is the "accepted" one.However, it may be the only unfalsified one but not have received a heck of a lot of testing itself. Before we could get samples of the moon the collesion one may have been short on tests done to falsify it. As it is has now had a bit more testing it is getting to be the consensus one.While, as Crash points out, a theory is "as good as it gets" for an explanation of something different theories may be of higher quality than others. What makes them higher or lower?1) The range of explanatory power they have.
Do they explain a lot of observations? Were a bunch of those predicted by the theory before they were measured?
2) The depth of testing that it has gone through.
Have a lot of tests been done? Did they probe at different aspects of it. I don't know enough about the moon formation theory to suggest examples here.
3) Are there any competing theories that explain things equally well?
4) At somepoint you do get to looking at how great the consensus is among the experts in the area. Are they all in agreement? Do many have some good, unanswered concerns about it?
5) Is it important or useful?
If a theory is important it will have more attention paid to it. If it still stands up after this it gets to be taken as "better". A theory that hasn't been falsified because no one pays attention to it isn't "as good" as another one.I'm sure thre is more but that is what I can think of right now.

quote:

---

Again, you're mistaken about what "theory" means. It doesn't mean "a guess that might be wrong." It means "a model that explains data from observations." Calling something a "theory" has nothing to do with how sure you are about it. Theory is as sure as it gets.

---

One of my favorite quotes out there is an Isaac Asimov one. (Actually, several of my favorite quotes are from Asimov, but that's neither here nor there.) I don't have it in front of me, but it's something like, "The thing about creationists is that they use the word 'theory' like it means something you came up with after a heavy night of drinking."

Hi Ed, thanks for the reply...You are correct of the reasons for the dropping consensus of the other two theories, and the collision theory *is* the most widely accepted one, and the teachers do even say so...quote:
"I don't understand "At least three of these theories are required here in NY to be taught; ". That seems nonsensical. First, I'm not sure it is super important to the study of the solar system that the details of the formation of one moon be taught. Second, it would, today, only make sense to teach the one with the most evidence that fits what is known. I don't get "required" there at all."-Well...What's not to understand? The topic can come up in a grade school earth science curriculum. A teacher simply can't reply, 'We don't think it's super important enough to study the formation of just one particular moon...even though that's the only one you see clearly outside every night. (Though, I do admit, I may have used the word 'required' a bit too loosely, as the board of Ed doesn't seem to like to give that impression too much unless the topic is clearly prooven and widely enough accepted as *fact*...not theory...A 'theory' seems to always have at least one other alternate 'theory' 'attached' to it...So, is it when there is almost none, or an extremely little portion of the population who believes otherwise, then, can/will/would it be changed to something closer to fact?)Basically, here's the jist of it; If a student in 8th Grade were to ask the question, 'Where did the moon come from?', and a teacher where actually not to know an answer to give (I know this particular topic would seem a bit ridiculous, but humor me), and now that teachers tries to find the answer, someone in the board of Ed would suggest an answer like: "...three theories of Earth-moon system formation: Sister theory-Both formed from gas and dust at same time. Daughter theory or Collision Theory- Earth chunk breaks off from a collision, and forms satellite. Capture theory- Moon was originally asteroid-like and was captured in Earth's gravitational pull." - This with a side note that the Collision theory is currently the most accepted one. Of course, they also now assume the teachers would go out and learn more about each of them.As to my original question; What I was trying to get at is; When, or under what more, circumstances or proofs, or evidence or dis-proofs, or whatever it is that is needed, until only one of the theories, (probably the collision one, of course), *will* be taught as 'obviously' *the* only way the moon was formed? ....When or how can it get out of the 'Theory' label??Sorry if I was, or still am, confusing. When your a bit confused, confusing things sometimes come about - But don't quote me on that!

Sorry, missed some posts with my delayed writing. By the way, I'm new here, and I've been reading up on many past posts now since first finding this site. Very interesting reading. There seems to be some great minds here! Hope you guys don't mind if I try to hang around and put my half a cents worth of things in here and there -And learn a thing or three of course.As I see it now, the best the collision theory, or even the round Earth, could ever be is; the best or most plausible or most widely accepted theory on the matter. That’s it period. And we justify that with the best explanations according to the facts that we have.In contrast, the very ‘lowest’ that a flat-earth theory can be is on the chain is something like; ‘a very implausible, and not a widely accepted theory.’ — but they can still be justified to call it a ‘theory’, in let’s say, a debate, and get away with it?? Would I be justified in saying that I don’t believe that they should even be allowed to label it a ‘theory’, because their explanation of it doesn’t even fit actual facts? But then, it seems, each individual fact is put into debate, or made into a theory, be it a 'lesser, or better' one, into this never ending cylcle.I think I am getting the meaning of theory down better now though! Thanks!!

Technically, no, but here's a secret I've learned in years of discussion and debate: trying to argue about what words mean is ultimately useless. Best to disprove their theory than to argue about whether or not they can call it a "theory" in the first place.

Good point Crash-Thanks!

Welcome Huffzone, You are correct in saying there seems to be some great minds here. There are also several half-way decent wits (would that be half-wit?)You are more than welcome to hang around as long as you like and contribute or not. There is a lot to learn here and these people are just the ones to help you on that journey.------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Newton's theories of physics still explain the motion of billiard balls, for instance. Einstein's theory of relativity will also explain their motion.

---

Just because I'm being picky:Newton's theories of physics do not explain the observed motion of billiard balls. However, the discrepancy between the Newtonian description and the actual observed motion is so small (given speeds that normally result from a human playing pool) that it requires extremely sensitive equipment to notice it.Newtonian mechanics of F = ma is always wrong in every case.We still use it because even though it's wrong, it's so damned close to the actual answer for most scenarios that we can live with it and it's much easier to calculate than using Einsteinian mechanics.But if you want to do things like GPS where there is a significant difference in gravity field strength thus affecting time, you cannot use Newtonian mechanics. The error term is large enough to be noticed.However, one can have multiple theories for the same thing. Take, for example, the early history of string theory. There were five of them and for a while, no way to favor one over the others. Since then, M-theory has shown that those five theories were really all just different ways of looking at the same thing.Of course, M-theory is more an hypothesis than a full-blown theory. We still haven't found any way to test it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Corrections noted. I think we're saying the same thing. But your examples are better. Will we ever, do you suppose? Is its untestability a fundamental constraint on the universe, or just an engineering problem? (Is it possible to know?)

crashfrog reponds to me:

quote:

---

Corrections noted. I think we're saying the same thing. But your examples are better.

---

Indeed, we were saying the same thing. I was just being that picky, anal-retentive boob I sometimes am.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course, M-theory is more an hypothesis than a full-blown theory. We still haven't found any way to test it.

---

​

Will we ever, do you suppose? Is its untestability a fundamental constraint on the universe, or just an engineering problem? (Is it possible to know?)

---

Alas, I don't know enough about the problem to really be able to say.I know that there are a few experiments that are being developed that would indirectly give support (like the search for gravity waves), but my understanding of the problem is that strings are so small that there is really a fundamental problem of how to detect them. If I recall the numbers correctly, they're on the order of 10^-43 meters in size and that seems to be below quantum threshholds for detection, as far as we know at this point.But, physicists are clever people and who knows what the future will hold. One interesting possibility of M-theory is that there are multiple branes with alternate universes right next to us. If gravitons are capable of leaving branes, it might be possible to come up with a communication method between them.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!