God did it + the sun is shrinking

[MrSandman]

Meet MrSandman a CREATIONIST!!!!!!!

 

Both Evolution and Creation can't be provened proving both are RELIGIONS. However, Evolution has been provened wrong on several accounts. Creation on the other hand hasn't. Ask me questions. I'm young, but have enough knowledge to tackle most of Evolutionist's Beliefs.

[PhDP]

Both Evolution and Creation can't be provened proving both are RELIGIONS.

 

Evolutionary biology is a serious science, Creation, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science.

 

Ask me questions. I'm young, but have enough knowledge to tackle most of Evolutionist's Beliefs.

 

Ok. Just for fun;

 

#1 The molecular clock. It's a predictive tool based on evolutionary biology. How can we build, and test, a molecular clock if evolution is a "religion" ?

 

#2 Another prediction of evolutionary biology; the third codon. Variations at the third codon are very different from variations at the two first codons, why ? This variation can easily be explained by evolutionary biology, how can you explain it ?

 

#3 Gene duplication. We see this all over the genome; the results of gene duplications. How can it be explained ? How can you explain that we, humans, have pretty much everything to synthesize ascorbic acid (vitamin C), but because of a pseudogene, we can't. How can you explain the very existence of pseudogenes ?

[MrSandman]

I'm sorry that I don't have enough training, but I'll do my best. Evolution may prove certain things, but can't ignore what contradicts it. Like for instance the Sun is moving away and shrinking at a consistent rate. If you calculate both you get a number of 25,000 years ago. What do you get past that? A world devoid of any biomolecular structure, because the sun would be so close that it would kill anything else living. A biological clock isn't accurate. They assume that the rate of change on earth has stayed the same. Can they prove this? No, it isn't possible. It would be the same as saying that a car moving 60mph has always been moving that fast.

 

Explain the existence of pseudogenes? Gladly, God made them. Maybe not them exactly, but a common ancestor similiar to them. Like a tocan has a bird as a common ancestor. God made things able to adapt, so it would seem logical for microevolution to exist.

[PhDP]

I'm sorry that I don't have enough training, but I'll do my best

 

Of course you don't have enough training. You need to read something serious about evolution. Bashing something you know nothing about is just absurd.

 

A biological clock isn't accurate. They assume that the rate of change on earth has stayed the same. Can they prove this? No, it isn't possible. It would be the same as saying that a car moving 60mph has always been moving that fast.

 

Biological clock ? I was asking you a question about the molecular clock.

 

Explain the existence of pseudogenes? Gladly, God made them. Maybe not them exactly, but a common ancestor similiar to them. Like a tocan has a bird as a common ancestor. God made things able to adapt, so it would seem logical for microevolution to exist.

 

Do you know what a pseudogene is ? It's functionless. Do you know why we can't produce vitamin C ?

 

And what about the third codon ?

 

I'm sorry, but I'm studying evolution, I'll start a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology soon. So when you claim evolution is a religious beliefs, when you claim evolutionary biology is not true, I expect you to know what your talking about.

[swansont]

Like for instance the Sun is moving away and shrinking at a consistent rate. If you calculate both you get a number of 25,000 years ago.

 

Cite? (reputable source, please)

 

When you post unsubstantiated factoids expect to get called on it, especially when they are crap.

[Edtharan]

A biological clock isn't accurate. They assume that the rate of change on earth has stayed the same. Can they prove this? No, it isn't possible. It would be the same as saying that a car moving 60mph has always been moving that fast.

Even though a single species might have had a variable rate of change, they can use other species to detect this change in speed. Like tree rings, not all trees grow at the same rate, some plants grow at a variable rate depending on the seasons (deciduous plants), and some grow at a much more constant rate (tropical plants for instance). However, if you cut down two trees at the same time, then you can still use one tree to "calibrate" the tree ring data from the other.

 

So, one species might have had an "accelerated" change in their DNA, (may be because a retro virus spread through the population and caused many mutations in their DNA - like is currently happening with Koalas here in Australia) and another might be "ticking" along much slower, but if you know that those two species were contemporary with each other (like through fossil records), then you can use that information to recalibrate your DNA "clock" and account for any variability in the ticking rate.

 

This is why a lot of research goes into measuring DNA changes as that these kinds of corrections can be made. Using DNA is not a simple matter of "Counting up the mutations and dividing by a constant" to give you the year as many critics want you to think (I have even heard a critic actually use almost those words as "proof" against the method).

 

Like for instance the Sun is moving away and shrinking at a consistent rate. If you calculate both you get a number of 25,000 years ago.

I agree with swansont here. Even in discussions with other people (not on this site) about the validity of evolution (and my own exploration on the 'net), I have never even heard this claim before, let alone any reputable sources.

 

Also why 25,000 years, not 26,000 years, or 6,000 years or 1,000,000 years.

 

We know that the Sun is roughly 8 light minutes away (that is it take the light from the sun around 8 minute to reach Earth).

 

Using the speed of light at 300,000km/second. This gives us the distance to the sun as 300,000km x 60 x 8 = 144,000,000km.

 

Now divided this by the 25,00 years and we get 5,760km/year as the speed of the Sun. Or to put it in every day terms, about 0.657km/hour (or about 6.57m/h). Of course, this is assuming the sun was at Earth 25,000 years ago. If it was only half that distance (and microbes below the surface would have easily been able to survive the Sun at that distance), the we can just divide by 2 to get a speed of 2,880km/year.

 

What do you get past that? A world devoid of any biomolecular structure, because the sun would be so close that it would kill anything else living.

What about bacteria that they have found living kilometres under the ground. How long would that survive? Is that what you are taking the point of being "devoid of any biomolecular structure".

 

Also, if the Sun was closer, the it would have been hotter (otherwise what reason would there be for the earth to be "devoid of any biomolecular structure"). Therefore animals that have proteins that can not work in hotter temperature ranges (humans for instance have several of these that stop working if the body temperature goes only a few degrees above normal). So, you would see in the fossil record that these kinds of creatures didn't exist (as their proteins wouldn't have worked and they would have died). This therefore means that any creature that have these kinds of proteins must therefore have developed them after the rest of the animals were in existence which would be that they "Evolved" them.

 

But hang on, you were trying to use this as evidence against evolution. But this situation could only occur if creatures that are cold adapted "evolved these traits.

 

So even if you can prove these claims, it only proves evolution. And if the you are wrong and the Earth has existed for roughly 4.3 billion years, then this allows for the current form of evolution. So it's got you coming and going.

[MrSandman]

Well it doesn't prove that the earth is 4.3 billions years old the sun would have been so close that there would be no oceans. It would be like having organisms in molten lava living. It goes to show that it couldn't have been over 25,000 years ago. You also forgot that the sun is shrinking. This doesn't give enough time for anything to evolve. No way it could have been billions.

 

Micro Evolution just because it has the same name doesn't make it the same as Macro Evolution. It isn't proof at all. Saying evolution is a RELIGION is perfectly accurate because you do not know how it arrived at it's present state. You think that it is possible to have a slime mold to form two perfect eyes the idea is perfectly absurd. Not to mention you can't have all the mass in the universe compressed into a size of a period. It isn't possible it goes against several laws.

 

Reply to Phill: If you would explain more on your questions I could possibly find contradictions.

[iNow]

Saying evolution is a RELIGION is perfectly accurate because you do not know how it arrived at it's present state. You think that it is possible to have a slime mold to form two perfect eyes the idea is perfectly absurd.

As mentioned above, it would be useful if you understood evolution before you bashed it (or, repeated your own version of what you heard others tell you... which I presume is what you're doing here now). The above quote indicates that further study by you on the mechanism of natural selection would prove fruitful.

 

 

Just because you don't personally understand the physics of rocket propulsion doesn't mean we cannot send ships to the moon. Creationism is the answer for people who are too lazy to learn the hard, but accurate, information.

[MrSandman]

God being as smart as he is created things so they could adapt, if they don't adapt fast enough they die. I know about evolution to some extint. Have you tried reading the bible? It has been provened true over 2000 times by prohecies that were provened by archealogy. There isn't enough evidence to back evolution. They never had a species change from one to another. They took a fruit fly and altered it to have no wings. Does this mean it isn't a fly, but another species. No. Why would I study a Religion to understand science unless the religion has proof and no contradictions. Natural selection isn't even proof for evolution.

[insane_alien]

Well it doesn't prove that the earth is 4.3 billions years old the sun would have been so close that there would be no oceans. It would be like having organisms in molten lava living. It goes to show that it couldn't have been over 25,000 years ago. You also forgot that the sun is shrinking. This doesn't give enough time for anything to evolve. No way it could have been billions.

 

well, seeing as we have a good geological history of the earth, it was perfectly solid 25,000 years ago. you also haven't shown that the sun is shrinking of moving away. and, at the moment, we are getting closer to the sun. we will be closest on january third. then we will start moving away again till july fourth.

 

Micro Evolution just because it has the same name doesn't make it the same as Macro Evolution. It isn't proof at all. Saying evolution is a RELIGION is perfectly accurate because you do not know how it arrived at it's present state. You think that it is possible to have a slime mold to form two perfect eyes the idea is perfectly absurd. Not to mention you can't have all the mass in the universe compressed into a size of a period. It isn't possible it goes against several laws.

 

do you mind linking to those laws and why can't you have a large number of photons in the same place at once? there is no law against that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

MrSandman, many perfectly absurd things have happened before. You need to prove not that something is perfectly absurd, but that it is patently impossible.

 

I also challenge you to produce evidence supporting your claim that the Sun is shrinking and/or getting farther away from us. Any sources for this information?

[MrSandman]

The mass couldn't be changed that much it isn't possible. Not to mention one of saturn's moon is rotating the opposite direction. Most of the others are rotating another way. Protons can't go into each other they have mass!

 

I'm not saying that it is a solid 25,000 it actually could be only 6,000, but that is very hard to explain. The temperture change in different times of the year is the rays aren't as direct. However, one second of the sun's heat at this distance could barbeque everything. Saying that it being that close would make us freeze over is absurd. I'll take a 10 million candle watt flashlight and hold five feet away from you. You would definitely feel it.

 

In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian announced that their studies of solar measurement records from Greenwich Observatory in England, and the US Naval Observatory in Washington, conclusively showed that the sun was shrinking. Its diameter was decreasing at a rate of almost six feet per hour.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

 

Nobody said the protons "go into each other." Recall that atoms are almost entirely composed of empty space. Remove the empty space and you can get an incredibly dense ball of protons.

 

Now, I also suggest you brush up on your distinction between evolution and cosmology. You are now arguing cosmology. What you have said so far has no bearing on evolutionary theory whatsoever.

[insane_alien]

The mass couldn't be changed that much it isn't possible. Not to mention one of saturn's moon is rotating the opposite direction. Most of the others are rotating another way. Protons can't go into each other they have mass!

 

actually, protons can't go into each other because the constituent components have noninteger spins. neutrinos can happly be in the same place at the same time hanging out with their mass.

 

I'm not saying that it is a solid 25,000 it actually could be only 6,000, but that is very hard to explain. The reason for that is the rays aren't as direct. However, one second of the sun's heat at this distance could barbeque everything.

 

prove it

 

In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian announced that their studies of solar measurement records from Greenwich Observatory in England, and the US Naval Observatory in Washington, conclusively showed that the sun was shrinking. Its diameter was decreasing at a rate of almost six feet per hour.1

 

the sun varies in its diameter faster than this all the time. it shrinks and expands periodically. usually at a few meters per second. even if that is true it is well into the experimental noise range and the observations would need to be over deades perhaps centuries to get a decent trend.

[D H]

This obviously has gone far from evolution. Then again, creationists tend to conflate evolution, abiogenesis, geology, astronomy, and cosmology into one single body of study. For a specific refutation of the "sun is shrinking" argument, see this page.

[Dak]

This obviously has gone far from evolution. Then again, creationists tend to conflate evolution, abiogenesis, geology, astronomy, and cosmology into one single body of study. For a specific refutation of the "sun is shrinking" argument, see this page.

 

I agree.

 

Thread spliterkated!^TM

[D H]

spliterkated!^TM

 

What is the proper pronunciation for this trademarked technique?

[PhDP]

Reply to Phill: If you would explain more on your questions I could possibly find contradictions.

 

I'm more than willing to talk and answer questions about evolution, in my opinion, it's the most wonderful and beautiful theory science has to offer.

 

I gave you 3 proofs of evolution, they all lead to predictions that have been confirmed. and you don't even have the basic knowledge of genetics necessary to understand them. Clearly, if you really want to understand evolution, you'll have to do some research.

 

On the other hand, if you have faith in creationism, that's ok, but don't claim it's science. Science is done by publishing articles in serious journals, not by trying to convince high schoolers.

[Phi for All]

Creationism is the answer for people who are too lazy to learn the hard, but accurate, information.

Which is important when you're only 16. I remember wanting a magic wand that made homework disappear. If the Nazarenes hadn't frowned on dancing, singing and dating I would have chosen the "fact-free" life of a creationist.

 

 

 

Btw, this debris can't stay in Evo. Boot to Speculations (he kicks, it's up, IT'S GOOOOD!!!)

[Reaper]

Well, that refutation didn't take very long .

 

Maybe a trip to Mr. Simanek's homepage will keep him better informed: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm

 

What you are about to read might kill your belief in creationism and your ego ( > ), but if you let it sink in you will be much better educated .

[Phi for All]

On the other hand, if you have faith in creationism, that's ok, but don't claim it's science.

Actually Phil, I would argue that creationism is NOT OK and I'm pretty tolerant of religious beliefs. There's no reason why an awesome higher power (even the Abrahamic God) couldn't have set the evolutionary process in motion billions of years ago. Why would God make the earth appear so old? With all the possible interpretations for Genesis why pick the most literal and ludicrous?

 

But you're right, using science and religion to prove or disprove one another is like using a hammer to figure out what time it is. It's just the wrong tool for the job.

[iNow]

But you're right, using science and religion to prove or disprove one another is like using a hammer to figure out what time it is. It's just the wrong tool for the job.

Have you never heard of a sun dial?

[swansont]

Have you never heard of a sun dial?

 

Or a pendulum?

[Phi for All]

Both Evolution and Creation can't be provened proving both are RELIGIONS.

You happen to be wrong on both counts. Evolutionary theory is one of the most sound, testable, falsifiable, repeatable theories in science backed up by tons of evidence (and by theory I don't mean "idea"). It's proven to the point any theory is proven, which means we're just waiting for any series of tests to disprove it. But so far, nada.

 

And creationism isn't a religion, it's an interpretation, one born out of fear that science is out to disprove Christianity. Guess what? Science shouldn't care about religion one way or another. You don't use the natural to measure the supernatural.

 

Have you never heard of a sun dial?

Or a pendulum?

Ummm, using science and religion to prove or disprove one another is like using a hammer to remove someone's spleen. How's that, you Physicistines?

[MrSandman]

Ha, who has been feeding you the crap that Evolution hasn't been not provened false???? It isn't sound evidence 'cause you don't have a sound starting. There is so much we don't know. Never has a species evovled into another species. Again, I say, "NEVER". Never has the accounts of the bible been provened wrong.The dead sea scrolls (Oldest known manuscript) had all but to differences when compared with the bible. The earth can be very old, but life how we know has only been around since God created it in Genesis. Evolution thrives off the big bang. But what's before the big bang? Dust? Where did that come from? You don't have the foggiest. God told abraham that wash you hands was very important. It wasn't discover till the 18th century why it was important. Proving that the bible has accurate accounts. The bible said the earth was round. It took thousands of years for them to prove it. Everyone else thought it was flat. Do I need to keep going on about what in the bible has been provened as a scientific fact? No one knows exactly what starts the process of DNA. It had to be started some where and given a push. That's what God did. You probably don't know about this 'cause you never read the bible.