Why evolution is impossible

[Dark_Lite]

Like the difference between midnight and noon.

Definition: evolution;
Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."

Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.


Does that help you see the difference?

Evolution doesn't have a direction, despite what some guy from 1955 might think. Evolution is change over time. Biological evolution is change in populations of organisms as a result of natural selection. The change could result in "degeneration" or "devolution." I'm pretty sure if you looked for something more recent, you wouldn't find the definition you quoted.

 

[sfs]

Moving on.

Could you please learn to use the quote function here properly? Your responses are a pain to reply to, since you've embedded your text within a quoted block.

Stop it. If you have a problem with me beginning with stellar evolution then take up the problem with the encyclopedias and dictionaries that define and explain it.

If you want to talk about stellar evolution, by all means talk about stellar evolution. But stellar evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution. Proving that stellar evolution didn't happen (assuming you could do it) says nothing at all about biological evolution, and vice versa. Also, when the term "evolution" is used, it generally means biological evolution.

Are you trying to say that Carl Sagan was lying about stellar evolution and that it is not relevant to the discussion?

The latter, not the former.

My statements are direct. Evolution is a lie. In fact, every class of evolution, whether stellar, chemical, or biological 'evolution' is a lie.

I have no problem with you calling evolution a lie. I do have a problem with you calling people "genius" as an insult, or with your ridiculous "what, are you uncomfortable talking about this?" shtick when someone objects to a change in subject. Attack ideas all you want, but don't attack people.

 

[Calypsis4]

Evolution doesn't have a direction, despite what some guy from 1955 might think. Evolution is change over time. Biological evolution is change in populations of organisms as a result of natural selection. The change could result in "degeneration" or "devolution." I'm pretty sure if you looked for something more recent, you wouldn't find the definition you quoted.

You aren't telling the truth.

More classic definitions of evolution:

" a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state. A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their ORIGINS in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Mirriam Webster Dictionary

"theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Encyclopedia Britannica

"evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones." (Walker, P.M.B., ed., "Cambridge Dictionary of Biology," [1989], Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 1990, Reprinted, pp.105-106. Emphasis original).

Evolution by definition IS directional. Don't try to escape that fact because you can't.Furthermore, I reject the more recent 'definitions' (ahem, RE-defined) of evolution, i.e. 'a change in allele frequency' . That is an Orwellian attempt to obscure the issue and confuse those who assent to evolution. Such an approach is like defining a souped-up 57 Chevrolet as 'a metal object with a 357 cu inch engine.' How woefully inadequate is such an explanation.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Furthermore, I reject the more recent 'definitions' (ahem, RE-defined) of evolution, i.e. 'a change in allele frequency' . That is an Orwellian attempt to obscure the issue and confuse those who assent to evolution.

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the current meaning of the word in the scientific community and attempt to attack it with old or common-use definitions. That would be attacking a strawman.

The definitions you quoted are either old or are for common use. The scientific community recognizes it as "change in allele frequencies over time."

 

[Calypsis4]

Could you please learn to use the quote function here properly? Your responses are a pain to reply to, since you've embedded your text within a quoted block.

I am doing things the quickest way possible for me. I see no problem with it. Stop complaining.

If you want to talk about stellar evolution, by all means talk about stellar evolution. But stellar evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution. Proving that stellar evolution didn't happen (assuming you could do it) says nothing at all about biological evolution, and vice versa. Also, when the term "evolution" is used, it generally means biological evolution.

Uh, I AM talking about stellar evolution and if you read carefully then you should have seen that I intend to cover chemical and biological evolution later. "it generally means biological evolution"...according to you. Please read the defintions I applied to this thread and see that it has a much wider application.

The latter, not the former.


I have no problem with you calling evolution a lie. I do have a problem with you calling people "genius" as an insult, or with your ridiculous "what, are you uncomfortable talking about this?" shtick when someone objects to a change in subject. Attack ideas all you want, but don't attack people.

Explain 'shtick'.

Nothing ridiculous about what I said. Calling someone a genius is not an attack. Take that any way you wish.

Now are you going to answer the many points I have already given against stellar evolution or are you going to continue to nit pick at me about non-essentials?

Bye.

 

[Calypsis4]

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the current meaning of the word in the scientific community and attempt to attack it with old or common-use definitions. That would be attacking a strawman.

The definitions you quoted are either old or are for common use. The scientific community recognizes it as "change in allele frequencies over time."

I made it clear that the 'current definition' of evolution is an Orwellian attempt to escape the classic, directional definition of simple to complex. Since modern accidentalists cannot prove that they therefore have deliberately sought a change in the concept. They are doing the same thing with terms like 'chemical evolution'(spontaneous generation)...which is now called 'abiogenesis' and with 'entropy' which they claim has nothing to do with 'disorder'. It's all a lie; a big Orwellian lie.

Apparently you have succumbed to that lie.

Now are you going to comment on the many facts I listed against stellar evolution or are you going to spend all your time on a useless debate about definitions?

 

[sfs]

a. “We have an even more amazing state of affairs in Trapezium, in the Orion nebula. These four stars are moving away from a common point in space at high speed. If you take their current speeds and compute backwards, you will find them at a common starting point only about 10,000 years ago. This means that they can't be older than 10,000 years. " from Creation Moments.

Instead of just spraying quotations from around the web, how about stopping and concentrating on one of them for a minute? After all, from the amount of information you've provided, it's impossible to say anything at all about what's going on in most of these cases. Take this one. What kind of stars are these? How old are they? How were their velocities measured? How accurate was the measurement? Are there any other stars in their vicinity? How was the projection backwards done? Was a full simulation of the gravitational interactions done? If it wasn't, then we have no idea where the stars would have been.

Anyway, if you could please answer those questions, we can begin to think about this case, and whether it actually has any implications for the age of the universe. If you can't, then there is nothing to talk about: no evidence, just a lot of words with no support.

b. The red supergiant star Betelgeuse, the bright reddish star in the constellation Orion, has steadily shrunk over the past 15 years, according to University of California, Berkeley, researchers. Over 15 years, it has decreased in size about 15 percent, changing smoothly, but faster as the years progressed." (from Science Daily).

And this means the universe is young, why, exactly? Stars never change?

c. We all know that galaxies rotate and their spiral arms usually sweep back, trailing behind the rotation of the galaxy. But a galaxy has been discovered that defies this opinion.It has arms opening outward in the same direction as the rotation of the galaxy's disk.

The galaxy, known as NGC 4622, lies 200 million light years away in the constellation Centaurus. A team of American astronomers analyzed images of the galaxy, and discovered that it has a previously hidden inner counter clockwise pair of spiral arms.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, with both an inner counter-clockwise pair and an outer clockwise pair of spiral arms, NGC 4622 must have a pair of leading arms," said Dr. Gene Byrd from the University of Alabama. "With two pairs of arms winding in opposite directions, one pair must lead and one pair must trail. Which way is which depends on the disk's.
But what is the problem with this? If you can imagine going to the toy store and asking the proprietor for a pinwheel that spins in both directions at once…you can then begin to grasp the difficulty. (from Astronomy Picture of the Day).

Well, I would indeed be troubled by this state of affairs, if I thought galaxies were pinwheels, or that galactic arms were rigid structures in them. Spiral arms are actually density waves in the galaxy, however. Can density waves form in different directions for the same galaxy if, for example, the galaxy interacts with two different passing galaxies? I don't know -- I'm not an astronomer. If you want to argue that they can't, by all means do so, but don't fail to show your math. And in any case, what does this have to do with the age of the universe?

I'm not going to bother with the rest. They're all pretty much the same: pick something that looks surprising, say it's inconsistent with an old universe, provide no details, no citations to the original studies, no investigation of the literature or ways that they might be explained in conventional ways, and declare victory.

If you want to challenge science -- I mean really challenge the intellectual content of it, not just feel good about making a point in a debate -- you need to do the work to understand it. I dare say you understand none of these cases, nor are you going to make the effort to do so. The scientists who have spent their lives studying these things, of course, are virtually all convinced that they're consistent with a universe that's billions of years old, and that's true regardless of their religious beliefs. You, however, having cut and pasted a few lines from a web page, know better. Sheesh.

 

[sfs]

Bye.

I just used the quote function provided by this forum with your message. This is the entirety of what appeared. That's what's wrong with the way you're responding.

 

[sfs]

I am doing things the quickest way possible for me. I see no problem with it.

Of course you don't see the problem with it, since it's other people who have to deal with the problem, not you. Instead of doing things the quickest way possible for you, you could do things in a way that is considerate of others. Why is that such an unreasonable request?

Stop complaining.

It was a polite request.

Nothing ridiculous about what I said. Calling someone a genius is not an attack.

"I didn't say it did, genius" is not insulting. Do you honestly believe that?

 

[Mallon]

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the current meaning of the word in the scientific community and attempt to attack it with old or common-use definitions. That would be attacking a strawman.

Which is exactly why this discussion isn't going anywhere. Whereas you want to talk about modern science, he wants to use out-dated misconceptions as the basis for his arguments. And quote mining, evidently. Honestly, when someone's entire argument is quoted from elsewhere, you have to wonder whether the person really understands the argument they are quoting, or whether they are simply doing the ol' Gish Gallop. I think we're all just wasting our time here.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Which is exactly why this discussion isn't going anywhere. Whereas you want to talk about modern science, he wants to use out-dated misconceptions as the basis for his arguments. And quote mining, evidently. Honestly, when someone's entire argument is quoted from elsewhere, you have to wonder whether the person really understands the argument they are quoting, or whether they are simply doing the ol' Gish Gallop. I think we're all just wasting our time here.

Or if the quotes are actually in context.

 

[Calypsis4]

Quote: "It was observed nearly 2,000 years ago or so that Cirrus, the brightest star in the sky tonight, Cirrus is, it was a red star. All of the ancient astronomers described it as being red: Seneca said it was red, the Egyptian hieroglyphics said it was red. Yet today, Cirrus is a white dwarf indicating it happens in less than 2,000 years. It does not take 100,000 years like they said.
Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 BC describe Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 BC, stated Sirius was red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 AD (source: Its a Young World Dr.Paul Akerman)

A private citizen wrote a letter to NASA about this question:

(Submitted May 12, 2005)
"I am interested in the time it takes a red giant to become a white dwarf? Specifically, I am thinking about the Sirius mystery concerning the ancient records of Sirius as a red star. Although most articles I have found say that it is impossible, under our current stellar evolutionary model, for it to have evolved into a white dwarf, no literature that I have found explains exactly the time needed for it to have become a white dwarf."

The Answer from NASA:

"The answer to your question likely depends on the mass of the star in question. However, if we consider the Sun, then according to a timeline posted by John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California, it will take about 400 million years for the Sun to go from red giant to white dwarf."

Oh, but the mass of Sirius is the same as the mass of our sun so how could that figure into the equation? It doesn’t. They don’t have an answer for this.

Creationist Paul Ackerman says:

Modern astronomers are forced to accept the idea that within historical times Sirius B has transformed from a red giant to a white dwarf star. What is the problem with that? The mystery of Sirius B is that according to present conceptions of thermonuclear star radiation (see chapter 6), it should take at least 100,000 years for a red giant star to collapse into a white dwarf star.

The only real answer is that God created it about 6,000 yrs ago and it is degenerating just like the rest of the universe.

Next: lunar recession. The moon is said by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion yrs old. It isn't. It can't be if the formula for lunar recession (presently about 4 cm or 1.5 inches per yr) is correct.

since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance.

So dR/dt = k/R6,

where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 — Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year

Dear readers, 1.37 x 10^9 is about 1.4 billion yrs. But even at the most liberal variables in favor of evolution the earth can be nowhere close to 4.5 billion yrs old. Their calculations are in error.

Even more, the truth is that the orbit of the moon is degenerating, not evolving. If the moon continues its recession indefinitely then the time will come when life on earth will cease to exist. (Thanks to Dr. Don DeYoung for this information).

 

[Calypsis4]

Or if the quotes are actually in context.

"Which is exactly why this discussion isn't going anywhere."

It isn't going anywhere for YOU. You and your comrades don't wish to deal with the many facts I have posted, you just wish to nit pick.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Besides the fact that posting a giant wall of copy and pasted text isn't going to give you many actual responses, the moon thing has already been refuted tons of times:
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

Plus, the things you cite are more anecdotal in nature than anything else. Find them primary sources.

 

[Calypsis4]

Instead of just spraying quotations from around the web, how about stopping and concentrating on one of them for a minute?

I am not 'spraying' anything. I am making my case point by point. But you don't like those points because they fly in the face of what you believe in.

After all, from the amount of information you've provided, it's impossible to say anything at all about what's going on in most of these cases.

No, it isn't. Take your time. I am in no hurry. Are you?

Take this one. What kind of stars are these?

My suggestion. Wikipedia has that information and you can find it within 30 seconds.

How old are they?

Wikipedia.

How were their velocities measured? How accurate was the measurement? Are there any other stars in their vicinity? How was the projection backwards done? Was a full simulation of the gravitational interactions done?

Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia, and other sources provide that information. If I did all you suggest my posts would be many-fold longer than they are now. I won't do that.

If it wasn't, then we have no idea where the stars would have been.

As an evolutionist you don't have any idea why there are there to begin with.

Anyway, if you could please answer those questions, we can begin to think about this case, and whether it actually has any implications for the age of the universe. If you can't, then there is nothing to talk about: no evidence, just a lot of words with no support.

You don't wish to deal with the facts I gave. Those facts originated in secular/evolutionary sources. So deal with them or admit you have no case for stellar evolution.

And this means the universe is young, why, exactly? Stars never change?

You missed the point. I think you are doing it deliberately. The time scale of modern astronomers (most of them) concerning the distance and age of the stars is in error.

Well, I would indeed be troubled by this state of affairs, if I thought galaxies were pinwheels, or that galactic arms were rigid structures in them. Spiral arms are actually density waves in the galaxy, however. Can density waves form in different directions for the same galaxy if, for example, the galaxy interacts with two different passing galaxies? I don't know -- I'm not an astronomer.

That's right. They don't know either. Precisely why that discovery made the news. It goes against the known laws of physics.

If you want to argue that they can't, by all means do so, but don't fail to show your math. And in any case, what does this have to do with the age of the universe?

See my most recent post on the topic above if you wish to see some math. Then again you may visit websites like Alton Arp, George Tift, Cocke, etc. who have discovered many of the things I have/will discuss.

I'm not going to bother with the rest.

You haven't even started.

They're all pretty much the same: pick something that looks surprising, say it's inconsistent with an old universe, provide no details, no citations to the original studies, no investigation of the literature or ways that they might be explained in conventional ways, and declare victory.

If you want to challenge science -- I mean really challenge the intellectual content of it, not just feel good about making a point in a debate -- you need to do the work to understand it. I dare say you understand none of these cases, nor are you going to make the effort to do so. The scientists who have spent their lives studying these things, of course, are virtually all convinced that they're consistent with a universe that's billions of years old, and that's true regardless of their religious beliefs. You, however, having cut and pasted a few lines from a web page, know better. Sheesh.

My reply: Sheesh, that's an answer?

Have a nice day.

 

[Mallon]

You and your comrades don't wish to deal with the many facts I have posted

That's because all you are doing is spamming your own thread with quotes from AiG. It becomes increasingly difficult to focus on one topic when all you're doing is flooding the argument. I don't suspect many people will be reading half of what you've posted so far.

 

[Calypsis4]

Besides the fact that posting a giant wall of copy and pasted text isn't going to give you many actual responses, the moon thing has already been refuted tons of times:
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

So you swallowed that nonsense. But they said what you wanted to hear so it is no wonder. Been there; done that. The talk/origins junk is worthless. They aren't telling the truth. Work the two formulas out and see for yourself.

Plus, the things you cite are more anecdotal in nature than anything else. Find them primary sources.

Stop bellyaching about my sources and deal with the issues...please.

Have a nice day.

 

[pgp_protector]

You specifically said you would lay off this one. You still haven't told the truth since I encountered you.

The real truth is that you can't handle the truth of this matter any better than your evolutionist comrades.

Bye.

You know what they think? sounds like Mind reading
I don't recall that being one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mallon]

You specifically said you would lay off this one. You still haven't told the truth since I encountered you.

The real truth is that you can't handle the truth of this matter any better than your evolutionist comrades.

Bye.

Honestly, I wonder whether you understand anything you've posted as well. Simply quoting other people without putting the argument in your own words doesn't convey a grasp of the material. Look, I can refute your arguments for a young earth without thinking in the same way:

From: The Age of the Earth

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere

The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." (Morris 1974, p. 151 )
​

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )
​

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.
   
   
2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).
   
   
3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
   
4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.
3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]
​

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.
Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.
Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

If this is how you insist on making an argument, I can post lots more.

 

[Calypsis4]

Going further with evidence against stellar evolution:

Astronomer Halton Arp, though an evolutionist himself, is an honest evolutionist. To him facts are facts are facts and he doesn't twist facts in order to tout the evolutionist party line. He discovered a number of anomalies that have deeply disturbed the scientific community (and he is not the only one!). But here is another in addition to the one I posted in the O.P.

A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy:
"The final irrefutable falsification of the 'Redshift equals distance' assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy."

A quasar in front of/between earth and the galaxy? That is equivalent to evolutionary geologists discovering the remains of a human in the belly of a well preserved T-Rex! Quasars, by stellar evolutionary theory, are supposed to be the most distant objects in the universe...yea, at the very edge of that which is visible to earth.

But Arp gives all the necessary facts here: Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

Next, the planets that are in retrograde motion and the moons that are in a backwards orbital direction from all the other moons.

"In our solar system, all the large moons except Triton (the largest of Neptune's moons), have regular orbits. Of Jupiter's 55 moons, 48 have retrograde orbits. Of Saturn's 26 moons, 18 have retrograde orbits, and the particles in Saturn's Phoebe ring are thought to have a retrograde orbit because they originate from the irregular moon Phoebe. Of Neptune's 9 moons, 8 have a retrograde orbit". Wikipedia.

If our solar system evolved over billions of yrs as evolutionists tell us it did and with a rotational direction centered in the sun, then all the planets and all the moons should be moving in the same counterclockwise direction. But three planets are not doing this.

Quote: 'Six of the planets rotate in the same direction, which is counterclockwise when viewed from above the Earth's north pole. The exceptions—the planets with retrograde rotation—are Venus and Uranus. Venus's axial tilt is 177 degrees (or -3 degrees), which means it is spinning almost exactly in the opposite direction to its orbit. Uranus's axial tilt is 98 degrees." Wikipedia.

The usual explanation (ahem, party line!) is that all those moons were 'captured' by the planets and eventually fell into an orbital pattern...backwards. Right. The problem is that no one has ever observed such a 'capture' in the history of recorded science and no one knows how it could happen in the first place.

Again, the law of physics seem to be defied by all this phenomena. It's as simple to illustrate as stirring a cup of hot chocolate with marshmellows in a counterclockwise direction. One could stir the hot chocolate until kingdom comes and still never see a single marshmellow moving clockwise in the liquid.

I believe that God Almighty set the planets and moons in their orbital patterns deliberately so that honest men and women could conclude that they had to be created that way because nature could not do it.

Another set of reasons to reject the stellar evolution of the universe.