Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

... I see you found it necessary to alter your previous statement, but say "Again.........." as if this is what you had said the first time. It was not.

Why couldn't you just say 'ok my conclusion was hastily and incorrectly phrased' and leave it at that?

I submit no modification of my - and Science's - clearly stated position has occurred. The question of why and how things were caused or otherwise came to be as they are observed to be does not enter into scientific consideration, it is other or apart from the observable universe, to which thing, condition or state of being is confined the scope and interest of Science.

I submit you once again offer a straw man, and I submit that once again, I have demonstrated that to be the case and have destroyed that straw man. I submit this is so apart from and independent of any preference on your part. What I say is what I say, I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and what you may say of what I said in no way alters what was said. I submit that Creationsism/ID IS NOT SCIENCE, and that in no forensically, academically, or ethically valid manner may it claim to "have the endorsement of Science", regardless your position on the matter, or that of The Kansas Board of Education.

0 Replies

Someone who considers a theory of evolution to be the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on this planet may indeed have an opinion on catastrophism. I, for example, consider it nonsense of the first order. However, it is more than a little absurd (and completely typical of "real life") to suggest that a theory of evolution concerns itself with planetary astronomy.

Therefore, "real life"--Do you assert that a creation is the best explanation for the diversity of life forms on this planet? If so, what is your circumstantial evidence that this so?

0 Replies

aint gonna let im off with a warning eh?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life wrote:
One of the interesting things about evolutionists is how often they invoke catastrophism ( which they otherwise deplore) when they need it.

Features of some of the planets, for instance, that do not fit the evolutionary model? No problem. A huge collision must have taken place and that's why the data don't fit the evolutionary model. (Never mind that there is no actual evidence for the magnitude of the collision which would be required.)

A case in point is the rotation of all nine planets on their axes are not in the same direction. If all nine planets were spun out into their orbits as supposed, then why do they not all spin the same direction?

RL, your vague nonspecific style of debate cant be taken seriously. Youve just posted a fuzzy question which contain many possible areas of specificity, yet you just try to breeze through with only the vaguest of references. BTW Youre mixing and Matching concepts and terms.
Try to be specific about what youre asking. What specific question do you wish to ask about catastrophism, (since you appear to want to avoid the previous posts from set).
Whats your question about the evolution"ist' view of catastrophist insertions into a cosmological question? Im sorta lost here.

Are you strewing herrings again? Or are you serious. If youre serious, try to frame a question in adetail that doesnt allow anyone to weasel out of a specific answer.

While not specifically addressed to Setanta, it may be a good question to be answered by him. It does relate to the question of circumstantial evidence that would indicate creation.

The planets do not all rotate in the same direction. Why?

If they were all spun out into orbit in the manner proposed by common theory, then it would seem that they should.

If you were to spin around in a circle and release an object from your extended arm as your spin, the direction of rotation of the released objects will always be observed to be in the same direction (unless you consciously....... i.e. Intelligence ....... make an effort to spin it the reverse direction). This is a common law of physics.

We can observe that the planets do not all rotate in the same direction. Purely circumstantial, but .......why?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
... I see you found it necessary to alter your previous statement, but say "Again.........." as if this is what you had said the first time. It was not.

Why couldn't you just say 'ok my conclusion was hastily and incorrectly phrased' and leave it at that?

I submit no modification of my - and Science's - clearly stated position has occurred..............What I say is what I say, I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and what you may say of what I said in no way alters what was said...........

So do you stand by your ridiculous statement quoted here?

Timberlandko wrote:

Science has nothing to say regarding Origins.

A simple yes or no will do. No amount of verbosity will be able to hide your answer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

We can observe that the planets do not all rotate in the same direction. Purely circumstantial, but .......why?

And, of course, no answer to the question i've posed.

Watch him dance, folks . . . and be assured that "real life" does not intend to directly answer the direct question.

The issue is the diversity of life on this planet and whether or not evolution is an adequate theoretical explanation for that diversity. "real life" resolutely attacks any assertions about evolution, without providing an alternative explanation. When pressed to do so, he brings up cosmic origins. When cosmic origins are shown to be irrelevant to the issue, he attempts to introduce catastrophism--that failing, Velikovsky and company being the twits that they were, he brings up the rotation of planets. The one thing he does not do, is to provide an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, nor any circumstantial evidence to support the alternative he might offer--were he to answer the question.

"real life"--Do you assert that a creation is the best explanation for the diversity of life forms on this planet? If so, what is your circumstantial evidence that this so?

0 Replies

i know it's off-topic, but for anyone curious about retrograde rotation, here are some proposed explanations:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q50.html

0 Replies

I don't recall the details, but does not one of the outer planets (Neptune?) rotate on an axis paralell to the plane of the ecliptic?

The matter of planetary rotation is, of course, meaningless to this debate.

0 Replies

what I find curious is how RL strung together "catastrophist" and "evolutionist" together as integral components of his trial balloon .

Hes making Spaghetti monster arguments, except hes probably serious.

0 Replies

Here we go, it's Uranus (it's certainly not mine!):

Thenineplanets-dot-org wrote:

Most of the planets spin on an axis nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic but Uranus' axis is almost parallel to the ecliptic. At the time of Voyager 2's passage, Uranus' south pole was pointed almost directly at the Sun. This results in the odd fact that Uranus' polar regions receive more energy input from the Sun than do its equatorial regions. Uranus is nevertheless hotter at its equator than at its poles. The mechanism underlying this is unknown.

Read about it here.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

what I find curious is how RL strung together "catastrophist" and "evolutionist" together as integral components of his trial balloon .

Hes making Spaghetti monster arguments, except hes probably serious.

I don't know that he's serious so much as he's desparate. He does not intend to answer the question of if not evolution, then what?

For the record, i don't consider that there is any such thing as a catastrophist any more than i consider that such a thing as an evolutionist exists. Neither are ideologies, both are theories. Catastrophism is a joke of a theory, but a theory nonetheless.

0 Replies

Catastrophies exist, when evidence is presented to show that such catastrophies occur regularly or eve episodically, then they are Uniformitarian.
A catastrophist in the styles of Buffon or even Cuvier is a s valid as calling an artist a "minimalist or a mannerist".
The term Evolutrion"ist" became a response term coined by the Creatioist crowd to try to put all the titles on equal grounds. I dont take any offense because it matters not. Evidence is all that matters, and no matter what desparates attempts are taken to legitimize their worldviews, the Creationists? IDers are getting their legs trimmed freom beneath them and it galls the **** out of em.

As I smile quietly

0 Replies

The most of the exercise here it to prevent someone like "real life" from having the opportunity to disseminate creationist propaganda without challenge. In the real world, in real "real life," they're getting shot down, and it is indeed entertaining.

0 Replies

Richard Dawkins was just on Marty Moss Coehns "Radio Times".
articulate as usual. Although his insistance that he doesnt "bait" the Creation crowd is a bit of a stretch.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Richard Dawkins ... his insistance that he doesnt "bait" the Creation crowd is a bit of a stretch.

I award without contest to the Creationsit crowd the honorific of "Master" in the discipline Mr. Dawkins putatively eschews. The practice is intellectually foundational to the Creationist proposition - ontologic onanism is all that is offered by its proponents.

0 Replies

I find it quite amusing that the creationist crowd asks questions about the validity of evolution, but is not forthcoming with any answers for questions posed to them about creation/ID.

0 Replies

Actually, C.I., I believe there have been at least a few times that we creationists have tried to answer questions. I even recall one of the creationists saying that they didn't discount evolution completely. There's a difference between a question being answered and the answer being accepted.

0 Replies

MA, The question is about "creation," not evolution.

0 Replies

Actually, the question(s) are:

Evolution? How?

And like I said, as at least one creationist has pointed out, it is not beyond all possibility that some part of the evolution theory may be how God created things. But, of course, (not projecting here, you have stated it many times) since you don't believe in God you won't even accept that much.

Oh, not calling me MOAN anymore?

0 Replies

Our problem with "real life" is that he won't accept, apparently (it's hard to tell since he dodges the question), a proposition that evolution may have occurred subsequent to a creation. This seems apparent because he argues, usually very badly and disingenuously, against every proposition advanced here of an evolutionary mechanism. But he definitely has shown no inclination to clearly state a proposition, and provide even at the least, circumstantial evidence for his proposition.

As for MOAN, i don't intend to refer to you as MA, as that it how i refer to Merry Andrew, who has been here much longer than have you, and who was well known to many of us at AFUZZ before that. I certainly won't refer to you as "Momma"--you're not my mother, and there is nothing maternal apparent, to me at least, in what you post here. Nor are you an angel, there is no more reason to believe that such a thing as an angel exists than there is to believe that there are unicorns or "easter bunnies." The entirety of your chosen screen name, suggesting you are somehow the mother angel of them all, is too absurd and disgusting to even canvas.

So, as far as i'm concerned, MOAN it is, and MOAN it shall remain.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know