Evolution? How?

Poofism temples are disconcertingly easy to find. They are numerous in every town and come in many flavors from vanilla poofism to razzmatazz. You can choose to have just a little poofism mixed in with your reality, or you can "live the dream" and believe it all.

I think, from my observations, most "live the dream" of eternal life.

This was in response to



a request he has since modified to avoid this topic and has tried to refocus on diversity of species only.

The rotational peculiarities of planets constitute your circumstantial evidence for creation ? ! ? ! ?


Who knew ? ! ? ! ?


You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys . . . and about as well scientifically informed . . .

By the by, "real life," i did not change the terms of the question, i made the statement of the question more explicit as it became apparent that you are so desparate not to answer the question, that you disingenuously began discussions of cosmic origins and celestial mechanics, and your hilarious contentions about population growth. The question which i have repeatedly posed is a direct response to your contention that the evidence for evolution is only circumstantial and no better than the circumstantial evidence available for a creation. As a theory of evolution concerns itself with the variety of life forms now existent on this planet, it would be ludicrous (except perhaps to a logic-challenged creationist) to compare that theory to statements about cosmic origins or celestial mechanics.

I'm not avoiding any topic. You're the one who do anything you can to avoid answering the question i posed in direct response to your contention that a creation has as good "circumstantial" evidence as a theory of evolution. Since then, you've brought up any number of subjects with which you demonstrate your profound lack of scientific comprehension to avoid that question.

I'm not so sure.

If they wanted answers they would ask better questions. They would ask us *how* evolution works, and they would be interested in the answers. But they are not. Their questions are rhetorical assertions designed to challenge, not to understand.

In my opinion, all of the difference between creationists and scientists come down to a difference in philosophies; naturalism and theism. Discussions of evolution are merely knee jerk reactions to the particular aspect of reality which creationists find their beliefs in conflict with.

The *only* way to attack evolution is to attack the assumption of naturalism, because within the framework of science, evolution is simply a fact and there's no way around it.

This is why the ID push into schools and through the courts eventually spins down to an attempt to change the definition of science to remove naturalism.

As I said, you avoid it.

I also mentioned the decay of the Earth's magnetic field and the failure of the dynamo theory to account for the magnetic fields of the planets.

If the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, as measurements indicate, then the ancient age ascribed to the Earth by evolutionists must be seriously questioned.

To date the popular option has been a dynamo theory to explain how the field might reverse itself, etc but the theory completely fails when the Earth is compared with some of the other planets.

Yeah. How dare we. If only we would sit at your feet and seek the light of understanding.

Well, one can take a horse to water, but....

Not at all . . . i suggest that you go back several pages and look at the information i linked both on the rotational characteristics of the plaent Uranus as well as its magnetic field.

Comparing a theory of evolution to an allegation of creation to explain celestial mechanics is apples to oranges. A theory of evolution concerns itself with species diversity and how to account for it. Therefore, any comparison of evidence for that to evidence for a creation must concern itself with circumstantial evidence for the creation of so many diverse species as opposed to the biological evolution of those species.

You are quite entertaining, though. It's only taken you about twenty or thirty pages to attempt to use a false contention that i'm avoiding a topic on the principle of "an offense is the best defense"--since i've been accusing you for at least that long of avoiding this issue.

You alleged that the evidence for evoluiton is cirucmstantial, and no better than the circumstantial evidence for a creation. Therefore, whatever circumstantial evidence you purport to have must deal with the same issue as evolution--species diversity.

In the end, you "evidence" for a creation as you claim to be able to extract it from an examination of celestial mechanics is the same old lame contention that because science cannot necessarily explain every detail of that aspect of celestial mechanics which is entailed in the rotational properties of planets--then a supernatural agency is just as plausibel. That is tantamount to acknowledging that you have no evidence for a creation, circumstantial or otherwise, because all you've engaged in is alleging the ignorance of cosmologists and astronomers.

Pretty pathetic . . . oh, and, once again:

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?

Hi Ros,

Maybe you've accepted it as a fact because you refuse to recognize any possibility of falsification of the theory.

Perhaps you'd like to address the topics of the magnetic fields or regarding retrograde motion with a little more vigor than your previous attempt, then.

In the first post I made regarding the retrograde problem I noted that evolutionists resort to hypothetical planetary collisions in each instance to try to resolve this issue. Your link adds nothing to that.

That's a lot of collisions and no evidence (such as massive damage that one would expect as evidence of rotation-altering collision with a planet) to back the assertion unless you can come up with something new.

Your having referred to a catastrophism theory--which i had already derided, by the way--is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that there are astronomers of repute in statistically significant numbers who make such a contention as that catastrophism is an important and frequently observed factor in celestial mechanics. In language which even a barrel full of creationists might understand--you having said something does not make it so.

Once again, a theory of evolution is not an ideology, so there is not such thing as an "evolutionist." Those who consider a theory of evolution to be the best possbile explanation for the diversity of life forms on this planet cannot reasonably be assumed to have any particular view of celestial mechanics soley on the basis of their view of a theory of evolution.

Apples to oranges all over the place, and no answer to the question i posed in response to your allegations:

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?

Google Uranus collision

You'll find it's a frequently referenced theory including the NASA site.

i don't know exactly what constitutes an evolutionist, but if you mean biologists, i doubt many have much interest or expertise on the question of retrograde planetary rotation. cosmologists and astronomers i expect would have theories about it, but they're probably no more qualified to theorize about origin of lifeforms than the average layman. so it seems to me a non sequitur to fault "evolutionists" for the hypothetical nature of theories of retrograde rotation. the only relevance i can conceive of for retrograde rotation vis-a-vis evolution would be an interpretation of retrogade rotation that's consistent with intelligent design, but i'm not aware of any claim that the retrograde rotations of Venus & Uranus have any effect on terrestrial life.

I didn't deny that scientists occassionally allege catastrophic events. It is typical of your rhetorical style that you have ignored "an important and frequently observed factor in celestial mechanics." One swallow does not a summer make. As usual, you conflate a specific circumstance with the entire gamut of data and conclusions in a discipline--in this case, astronomy.

And, of course, as usual, you will do anything to avoid the question:

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?

Additionally, the rotation of Uranus is not necessarily to be described as "retro-grade," rather, the axis of that planet's rotation is parallel rather than perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic.

[quote=""real life""] resort to hypothetical planetary collisions in each instance to try to resolve this issue.[/quote]

This certainly appears to be a contention that catastrophism is considered by astronomers to be an important and frequently observed factor in celestial mechanics. Of course, "real life" has provided no evidence that this is so--not even of a circumstantial nature.

when discussing with rl, its merely a "Holdout". We can explain, he goes away, then he comes back a few pages later with same rubbish.

1Planetary motion-over 99.0% of the solar systems angular momentum is prewserved in the orbital paths of the planets (Hint: they all orbit the same way). Planets witha reverse rotation , also have screwy axial directions. Planet accretion can be the entire force needed to cause a slow down and counterrotation. BUT, since the orbits are preserved, they are the biggest evidentiary items in common occurences. PS "The Big Bang" had nothing to do with dynamite.


2 Ive explained this twice already . DECAY OF THE MAGNETIC DIPOLE MOMENT IS HOGWASH.
The earth isnt always a simple dipole
Poles wander
The dipole moment has been essentially flat since the 1920s, its not decaying "exponentially or arithmetically"
Data on mineral alignment in magmatic deposits shows that the total field strngth has remained essentially the same since the Grenville age(About 1.2 BILLION years ago).
We have to correct our mag instruments to diurnal fluctuations and, because the pole is wandering southerly, all this year, weve been having to grade our readings "UP" a few gamma each day

There is a really good book published by the Maritime Geological Society of Canada. Its called"The LAst Billion Years" Its got a series of great discussions for those wanting to get at the concepts and not mess with all the differential equations. Ive used it twice in a survey Historical Geology course for non majors and, most all of them "got it"


In a summary rant about the " myth of the decay of the earths magnetic field" . Nobody has published ANYTHING of real science (except the very looney "honorary doctor Barnes and his equally looney Dr Cowling")
We've understood the earths magnetic field(s) since the days of
Chapman and Dobrin.
The interested reader can find a very good scholarly discussion and data presentation based upon remnant paleomagnetism (Torsvik and VAn der Voo 2002, "Refining Gondwana and Pangea: a refinement of Phanerozoic non-dipole(octupole) fields, Journal of Geophysics International.

Im like the garage mechanic whose being critiqued by the little old lady who wants the air in her tires changed. I can only state thatI work in this **** daily and I get annoyed at some bone-headed internet scraper telling me my field of endeavor, especially when its based upon religious lies and a fact that rl is "trying his damndest to bluff us". If real life had any idea about what he speaks, any investors would lose huuge sums of money on his "chicken little basis of the denial of science"We had the same magnetics discussion from RL a number of pages back and he quietly went away, only to return and further assault our intelligence. Maybe I should start a thread that says something like "Creationism is just fact-free kaka especially developed by and for people who cant conceive of the elegant theory that DArwin proposed".
Course that would be rude. Ill let gus do it.

You have a serious inadequacy complex don't you.

By the way, you never answered my previous questions: How old do you think the Earth is, and how old do you think the Universe is?

You also haven't answered Set's question, but it was a little more complex, requiring something other than a simple numeric answer, so I made mine as easy to answer as possible.

Rosborne wrote (to reallife):

...there are certain definitions at work here which are undebatable. One being the definition of science, which precludes the assumption of the supernatural (deities of any form). So anyone, scientist or not, who assumes the existence of a deity is making an unscientific assumption. It doesn't make them a bad scientist, it just means their assessment of reality is an unscientific one. Nothing more.


My comment:
Science does not preclude anything... It just has not observed the movements of God yet... It does not rule out the existence of God yet it has no evidence (that many scientists are convinced of) that decides either way.

I also might mention that you all seem to be teetering either way on the fulcrum of evolution/creation. I find that to not really hit the heart of the issue? Because, we may have evolved and the heavens and the earth may still have been created.

So if we give it to science and say Ok, humans evolved... but how did the substance that we all evolved from get here? Science has no answer for that whatsoever!!!

So given that they cannot answer the question then it only cements the current fact that they are unsure of "how" the rudimentary particles of reality initially came into existence. It boggles their mind... That is because the answer is consciousness itself.

The theist knows the answer... That love "precedes" all... The scientist conceives of love as a product of life and the theist sees life as a product of love...