Evolution? How?

Setanta asked a general question

(emphasis mine)

and when he was unable to answer the arguments advanced, including arguments regarding pre-existent matter, spontaneous generation, entropy, irreducible complexity and the harmful nature of most mutations --- he decided to try to steer the conversation in a direction he thought might be more favorable, while phrasing the question as if he wasn't sure what my position was.

Sometimes it came out like this

(emphasis mine)

or

(emphasis mine)

I rather doubt he has ADHD, so I find it funny that he feigns a lack of knowledge in this way.

A more reasonable question would have been



He has spent considerable time ridiculing the idea that 'cosmic origins' have anything to do with the question he asked, even scolding with statements such as



But creation is, after all, about cosmic origins as much as it is about the diversity of species and the origin of life and the formation of the planets, etc. And that is what he repeatedly asked about, but apparently really didn't want to talk about.

Mesquite, perhaps you would like to address how several of the planets which supposedly were formed according to the common theory of planetary evolution could rotate in a direction opposite their peers?

A very basic law of physics holds that if all these bodies were spun out into their orbits from this rotating mass of debris around the sun, then their direction of rotation should all be the same.

We've looked at the Catastrophic Collision theory but I've yet to see a shred of evidence to back it. Any other suggestions?

Circle the wagons! real life is unable to answer any direct questioned posed such as "What circumstantial evidence do you allege exists for creation?"

Not interested in your circular argument; just answer the question.

My statements did not scold . . . you attempt to deploy (and not very cleverly) pejorative characterizations in your desparate rearguard against the germane question. The question throughout has been whether a theory of evolution or an assertion of a creation is preferable. Read the title of the thread. This thread concerns itself with evolution. In the interest of "real life's" silliness, i have stipulated that a creation may explain cosmic origins--cosmic origins, celestial mechanics and "real life's" inabiltiy or unwillingness to understand demographic statistics are none of them germane to the subject. "real life" deploys false dichotomies and false syllogisms in the attempt to avoid answering the question. Additionally, a naive or intentionally disingenuous characterization of those unrelated disciplines is no sound basis for abandoning a scientific examination of any phenomenon and asserting therefrom a supernatural intervention. "real life's" inability to understand, or unwillingness to acknowledge data from scientific investigation in no way constitutes circumstantial evidence that his preferred imaginary friend is the actual first cause of anything.

So, "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?

set, Id ignore rl. Hes irrelevant. His beliefes are fun to poke at but his view of science is all befuddled by his imposed worldview.
Science isnt gonna stop on his sayso as if theyve missed something. Even his reverse rotation data is a "spin" based upon well known facts and conservation of angular momentum. He knows nothing of what he speaks and were just making his day ny conferring credibility. I hate for him to be the "last guy standing" because some curious kids may believe his stuff, but weve been repeating the same responses to his same oft repeated arguments that are getting somewhat tiresome. So unless he comes up with some new theoscience, were doomed to listen to his "The magnetic field is decaying cause Dr BRNES WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT IN 1965", or "See, 3 planets whose spin orbits are almost like roller skates on the pavement have rotation axes counter to the other 6, and no matter how little angular momentum that accounts for, the archeopteryx could not have evolved from a lizard"

Hes "on the job" for his side, and I do admire his commitment. HE buys into all his theology without any proof or evidence. However Its his duplicity I cant stand.

Well, i'm game to continue to demand that answer the simple question which i formed from his own criterion for evidence, at least for a while.

He won't win his "last man standing" game as soon as he might hope.

You probably do have a point, though, as the fearful and superstitious likely only come to such threads to get their silly imaginary friend superstitions validated, so they likely will lend no credence to anything you or i or Ros or any other rational posters contribute here. "real life" makes it so easy for them, and they're eager to believe his fairy tales.

But i'm game to continue the silliness for now . . .

Ill probably keep up the banter also, but I sure hope he can come up with some new material. Safarti must be scraping the barrel over at AIG.

Trolls are a lot like feral cats - start feedin' 'em, and you've gotta helluvatime gettin' rid of 'em. And once they figure they're comfortable enough in a particular neoghborhood, they start breedin' ... there's a fine balance to maintainin' a vermin population at a level that provides plenty of opportunity for plinkin' without gettin' outta hand and wreckin' the environment. Once you've gottem, you gotta keep on 'em .. long as there's food for 'em, anyhow.

timber,

Yours is the best explanation I have seen for what has happened on this thread.

I have heard this before, and I am curious how this could occur...farmerman, you seem to be leading somwhere with 'angular momentum'...could you please elaborate?

Yeah wande-

but it depends who is defining "vermin" and you can bet your bottom $ it's the ones who can do and that's down to votes.For now anyway.

Angular momentum
Walkin' by my side
Her lovely locomotion
Keeps my eyes open wide

Angular momentum
See her gentle sway
A wave out on the ocean
Could never move that way


. . . with apologies to Johnny Tillotson

GAWSH! I go away for a day and 10 pages of stuff. It looks like the points I was discussing with ros and IB have faded into the background.

But as a corollary to those points, I took note of timber's reference to the Augustinian seed proposition which bears similarities to my position. However, I would add that God is not bound by a one directional stream of time.

I have also taken note of Setanta's promotion to Guru in training status. I see he has been practicing his turban wrap. Congratulations, Set. Your posts are (almost) always a welcome read.

I hadn't even notice, Neo, must mean i went over the edge somewhere . . . or Hey ! ! ! Maybe its because of my special new status as a Caucasian . . .

angular momentum is the radial vector product of an objects mass times its velocity and how much of that is preserved about a point (the origin)Ala Newton . Since the angular momentum of the solar system is over 99.9% preseved within the orbitals of the planets , which orbit the sun in the same direction, the relict momentum and rotation direction of a planet or moon, from acrretion incidents doesnt negate the evidence that the planets themselves seem to have originated from a similar source. Retrograde motion in rotation of 3 planets should be viewed with the data that shows these 3 planets each have heavily inclined axes. Unlike the rest of the planets. Could it mean that something , during planertary accretion had happened and caused their axes to shift and their rotation to be reversed a bit (uranus has almost a moonlike rotation-very slight) .
Then, rl is ignoring that we live inside a humongous galaxy which appears interlaced and of a related origin (mechanistically speaking of course)

Now , what the hell this has to do with biological evolution on this planet is merely a diversion used by rl's ilk.They wish to diffuse the BIG BANG,
Ive never concerned myself with the validity of the big bang or slow drip, I think its more important that we can post verse and chapter of the evidence from right here on earth. Whenever rl gets cornered he gets irrelevant and then he quotes freom AIG or somother Creationist site

AIG= Answers in Genesis(a website devoted to the proposition that Genesis was actual truth and not, as most Christians and Jews believe, allegory and moral teachings from a very crazy and schizophrenic God, who was fond of demanding tribute, lives, loved mind games and torture. A real role model , this god.

Evidence for creation? HAHA!

has bugger all to do with biological evolution, or the price of coffee, for that matter.

Well it is a coffee morning.

Congrats Set on the guru achievement.

Uh yeah, i guess . . . is there any pecuniary remuneration to be associated with the honor, or just a warm, fuzzy feelin'?

Set, Hate to disappoint you, but it's not even a "warm, fuzzy feelin." Maybe 50,000 will mean somethin.