Evolution? How?

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?

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

But with religion there is no trial and error. Anyone questioning the hypotheses (tenets) of religion, they are branded as heretics, blasphemous, anti-christs, devils-in-disguise, apostates, etc. Religion does not take criticism lightly. They get very violent. They shroud their words as 'holy' to make it criticism free. No questions are to be asked.........

Science is a view.

It certainly isn't truth!

flushd wrote:

Science is a view.

It certainly isn't truth!

Christianity is a view

It's certainly much harder to believe!

____________________________________________________

(This is not directed at you specifically, flushd)
It's seems to me that all the Christians want to do is tell you they're right and not care to explain why Notice how much proof is offered all over this forum as to why God isn't real and the very small amount as to why He is.
Just something I noticed...

(from a questioning Christian who is trying to listen to each side of the argument)

The essence of the creator is as a unifier not a divider...

Scientists and theists are both in the same pool. They are both struggling to know the creator or secret of creation.

Scientists make their observations of the natural world (though not always exclusively). While theists (likewise) observe the spiritual world.

Yet they both desire to unlock the secrets of the "TRUE" nature and image within all things.

God has unified science and theism in that same purpose. So it does not matter how many scientists believe that God is involved in creation or how many theists believe God was involved in creation, but the truth is essential... because our acknowledgement of God does not facilitate God's actual existence... Is God right on the other side of the scientists microscope? Always illuding them. Always one step ahead or aside. That it may take many years of study to ever find the most rudimentary elements of the universe.

So science is continuously in a quandary. It is like a big black hole that the scientists stand in front of and try to ignore the fact that it's there... Science takes you on this joy ride so far out and then they take you down this long winding dirt road somewhere in the cosmos and open the car door and say, "get out"! They leave you stranded on the highway of some physical temporal plane that has no solution. Science does have many happy endings but that is the thing, all good things come to an end in science... Someday our world will roll over on it's side and everything will turn upside down. Then the sun will red dwarf and explode into a supernova and the universe will implode then bye bye to the human race. This sounds like it is right out of the book of revelations...

Yet the theists is more often careful to not trust science completely. After all science is a multi-billion dollar corporation that injects rats with everything under the sun and performs partial birth abortions.... remember? "Researchers" observe and say, "Hmm... that injection immediately killed the rat, how curious"??? Yet the essence of "life" itself is something that will again take many years to fully understand.

The theist steps beyond the scientific wall... The scientists says, "If I cannot observe it it does not "scientifically" exist!" Yet the theist is not so rash to trust only their eyes but they believe that there are "spirits" within, that envelope life and the physical world... A ghost that it is by nature unseen within the mechanistic fabric of all things ... the intangible to science.. The very presence of the corporeal air that has the capacity to shape and change into most all creation.

Science sets these boundaries and says, "if you step beyond this point you are not a scientist but a quack!" One of these boundaries. That nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Nothing can be zero mass and exist. So if scientists plug up the hole the dam won't break... That means that the physical world is the only "reality" and there is not a layer outside of our physical onion shell that contains the spiritual world. Well what about protons? What about quarks and neutrinos?

After all how can thoughts just travel through billions of light years of space in an instant? The theists says maybe the same way that thoughts travel in a split second from the brain to the fingernail through billions of cells... and God is a computer...

Science can only go so far... then they stop confounded in total awe of life.. Faith bridges the gap...

It may take thousands of years before "science" has a definitive answer as to if there is a spiritual world that is outside (and within) our "physical" world.

Until then it takes soul searching, wrestling with the conscience and looking to the eternal. Something that science cannot even grasp as of yet...

Thus again, God is a uniter.

Science chooses to take the universe, earth and society and hold it's measurement ruler up against it and say, "To the best of our ability, this is "reality"."

But the the theist does not trust the earth, air etc... the universe and the image of self as a "standard" to measure the inner spirit. They believe the inner spirit has an image that is not "measurable" and "observable" in the "natural" world. Though the natural world is divinely created it does not necessarily contain the image of God...

The theists does not trust the five senses. These five senses are the ONLY means that the scientist has to ascertain data... The theists opens the soul and the heart to the "unknown". Searching for another "sense".

The purist scientist purposefully blocks off this sixth sense. Thus their data and conclusions are nearly always devoid of any spiritual considerations... Is that objective?

The "five senses" physical world lures and entices the unenlightened into spiritual deprivation, ultimately death and finality. Metals rust, things decay and corrode this is the nature of their world...

It is the spirit world that is like a dove and flys down within, re-energizes and liberates the soul, cleanses the mind from it's static isolation and the stagnation of a godless physical existence.

A true theist does not deny reality, proper science and good technology. They only augment the theist's life through medical breakthroughs, scientific understanding etc... It is the theist that believes that when the scientist is done their million year observation of the universe they will finally have their perfect picture of creation... The theists will know one thing... there will be something missing from the scientists picture. That is the star of the show... God... God created human (spirit) in his own image not the image of the universe... They continually see the physical image around them, that thus obscures and invalidates the true dynamic perfect "image" of God within. Not all of nature is natural...

Life has happened the way it has continually untouched by God for billions of years because when A equals B then automatically the sum is always C.

This over time has caused the universe to evolve. When there is unity peace exists.

But when after billions of years of A and B producing C suddenly the theist comes along and A no longer is equal to B and the result is D... This changes the core of creation.

This is the sign of the spirit... It is not disagreeing for disagreement sake... But it is an age of spiritual enlightenment. What is the spirit? Though we may see the spirit in operation at some point in our lifetime what actually is this spirit? That when every last particle and ash of our universe has faded lost beyond the last memory that spirit will remain alive and pristine because spirit endures beyond the end of time and space...

I am not religious, it just burns me when confronting folks who give off the idea that science is somehow all wonderful. It is not. It is responsible for much violence, pain, and destruction.

flushd wrote:

I am not religious, it just burns me when confronting folks who give off the idea that science is somehow all wonderful. It is not. It is responsible for much violence, pain, and destruction.

must disagree with this. people are responsible for violence, pain, and destruction. of course, scientists are people, as well, so some of them may be responsible for destruction. you'd have a stronger case arguing that technology is destructive, but even then i would disagree. for instance, consider gunpowder. on the face of it, one of the most destructive inventions ever, except that the Chinese who invented it used it mainly for fireworks. or take box cutters & jet aircraft: they were used to destroy the world trade center, but i'm not aware of anyone suggesting that their manufacturers were responsible for the 911 attacks. i can come up with many similar examples, and i'm sure you can as well.

yitwail wrote:

flushd wrote:

I am not religious, it just burns me when confronting folks who give off the idea that science is somehow all wonderful. It is not. It is responsible for much violence, pain, and destruction.

must disagree with this. people are responsible for violence, pain, and destruction. of course, scientists are people, as well, so some of them may be responsible for destruction. you'd have a stronger case arguing that technology is destructive, but even then i would disagree. for instance, consider gunpowder on the face of it, one of the most destructive inventions ever, except that the Chinese who invented it used it mainly for fireworks. or take box cutters & jet aircraft: they were used to destroy the world trade center,. but i'm not aware of anyone suggesting that their manufacturers were responsible for the 911 attacks. i can come up with many similar examples, and i'm sure you can as well.

Examples?

RexRed wrote:

yitwail wrote:

flushd wrote:

I am not religious, it just burns me when confronting folks who give off the idea that science is somehow all wonderful. It is not. It is responsible for much violence, pain, and destruction.

must disagree with this. people are responsible for violence, pain, and destruction. of course, scientists are people, as well, so some of them may be responsible for destruction. you'd have a stronger case arguing that technology is destructive, but even then i would disagree. for instance, consider gunpowder on the face of it, one of the most destructive inventions ever, except that the Chinese who invented it used it mainly for fireworks. or take box cutters & jet aircraft: they were used to destroy the world trade center,. but i'm not aware of anyone suggesting that their manufacturers were responsible for the 911 attacks. i can come up with many similar examples, and i'm sure you can as well.

Examples?

Do you mean in addition to those already provided?

Technology - a concommitant of science - is, as science is, ideologically neutral, What may or may not be done with or through technology is a matter purely of human volition. Technology, and its parent, Science, are neither good nor bad, intrinsically, they simply are. Bad science by definition is not science, and technology may be used for good or ill.

It is amusing, telling, and quite encouraging that those in thrall to the lunacy of American Fundamentalist Christianity have deemed Science to be their enemy. A more surely fatal strategic error cannot be imagined. The Fundies have picked the fight, structured it as a war of wits, and go at it half armed.