DescentBB

I can disprove evolution in no time at all
The sun is shrinking at about 5 feet per hour, or .1% per century. 20 million years, a fraction of what Evolution needs to take place,(about 5 billion) the earth would have been rolling on the surface of the sun. you can see that didn't happen because(1) the inner planets are there,(2) earth isn't a cinder, and(3) all the other planets aren't sporting burn marks.

Ok...

I'm pretty sure the sun's shrinkage is related to volume. Hence, as the volume increases the radial decrease rate would decrease.

Also, just because the sun is shrinking now doesn't mean it always was. You can't just invert the rate and assume that the sun was at some point that size.

20 million years is only .4% of 5 billion, so the rate must have increased INCREDIBLY rapidly over the last hundred years for us to measure 5 feet an hour now.
I also don't see how the sun would change speed shrinking, because if it shrunk slower, it would also let off less energy, meaning the earth would freeze solid.

I'd like to know where exactly you are getting this information concerning "sun shrinkage".

IIRC, its theorized that the sun will one day expand to consume the inner planets late its lifespan, so you using solar shrinkage to disprove evolution is sounding a bit insane at the moment.

By your reasoning, 62.5 million years ago, the sun would've been large enough to engulf Jupiter too; draw your own conclusions about the sanity of that statement.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm
stars do have a (theorized) weird lifespan.
they start as huge gas clouds, coalesce into a large star, continue shrinking untill the gravity of the star is less than the explosive force of the fusion reaction and grow into a red giant, than shrink back down to a black hole or dwarf star.

and I am saying that evolution is crazy saying that the universe is billions of years old, and the fact that 62.5 million years ago jupiter would be engulfed dosn't agree with the "fact" of Evolution. To an intellect like me, it makes no sense whatsoever

I wonder what Rican is doing right now...

1) "Institute for Creation Research". Enough said.

2) "The data Eddy and Boornazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual." Wow 400 years. That sounds like a whole lot of data eh? Obviously enough to extrapolate off of for hundreds of thousands of years.

Show me some data from an independant physics journal stating that this whole sun shrinkage theory means that the sun is less than X thousand years old and I'll listen.

Evolutionists "proved" we're actually monkeys with a few teeth.
they've also found "neanderthals" with full body armor
the only difeance between the neanderthals and us is a thyroid condition brought on by poor nutrition.

one day this white guy with a grey beard said "shazam" and the universe was born. by any chance did you smoke some of that chronic i had on new years "another Meat"? it was really good.

/me repeats endlessly "Must resist temptation to flame idiot!"...

cant...give...in...must...resist

resistance is futile

Just keep posting how you can disprove over a billion years of evidence is wrong because of some 400 year study about the size of the sun.

I also wonder how they measure the sun with accuracy to see a difference of 5 feet today, let alone 400 years ago. I mean comeon, how exactly do you find that information, the sun is 870 thousand miles in diameter and 93 million miles away. How can you accurately measure 5 feet with numbers like that flying around?

-Krom

So you'd rather be a huge accident and therefore are totally worthless?
With an IQ of 137 I think someone gave me something. Evolution dosn't fit in this world. it's way too complex. it's the equivalent of putting 10 pounds of c4 in a print shop and watching brand new dictionarys come out of the raw materials.
If someone said a tornado went through a juskyard and made a 747, you'd ask what he was smoking.

If they can watch mount everest gain less than a centimeter a year, I think they can measure 5 feet an hour.

Edit: by the way, I'm a nerd not an idiot

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> So you'd rather be a huge accident and therefore are totally worthless?
With an IQ of 137 I think someone gave me something. Evolution dosn't fit in this world. it's way too complex. it's the equivalent of putting 10 pounds of c4 in a print shop and watching brand new dictionarys come out of the raw materials.
If someone said a tornado went through a juskyard and made a 747, you'd ask what he was smoking. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is all an elaborate ploy to get us to do your homework for you. Sorry bub, the gig is up, do your own research.

Unless you're serious, in which case either form your arguments better or don't bother.

Statistically, I don't believe we can yet establish a probability of the evolution of life on a given planet, given certain cirumstances. Though I do see this evolution probability being smaller and closer to zero than any number you could dream about, it can still happen nonetheless.

It's like the lottery. You can only have so many different combinations of numbers, and one set of numbers will win it all. Same with evolution, you have to have the right conditions, same substances, blah, blah, blah. I don't think there the margin of error is large enough to disprove evolution just yet.

Yeah zoop, just like the lottery, it is inevitible that someone will win. The odds in the lottery are probably worse then the odds of evolution.

fill the visible universe with blue electrons, and put 1 red one in it. finding the red one on the first try has the same odds of evolution.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
fill the visible universe with blue electrons, and put 1 red one in it. finding the red one on the first try has the same odds of evolution.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your idea of evolution is a little skewed...

Evolution comes from stress put on a speices that causes a genetic change. Yes, DNA does exist and yes mutation do occur. Evolution is simply saying that these changes aries to the benifit of a species.

You can proves this using a computer and genetic algorithms. Eventually, the algorithm arrives at an optimum, one best suited for the enviornment. So, as a species continue to thrive, they differ slightly from generation to generation (you are a random mix of your parents DNA). The strongest mix will survive and pass on his genes where the weakest will not and be removed from the gene pool.

My IQ is higher than yours so maybe someone's telling me to tell you something?

this is turning into a battle of wits between unarmed opponents.
I need to research creation a little more.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
...the fact that 62.5 million years ago jupiter would be engulfed dosn't agree with the "fact" of Evolution. To an intellect like me, it makes no sense whatsoever</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It disagrees with your sun shrinkage theory: ie the sun has been continually shrinking for expressed period of time.

Although the probability of evolution occurring is much higher if there's an Intelligence behind it...

edit: If there's one thing I've learned in being in these debates, it's that both sides are wrong... whatever that means!

I think the name "Meathead" pretty much sums this thread up.

In creation/evolution debates, do beware of unwarranted extrapolations--since the subject matter is so old, the temptation to make them is huge! This about the sun, I think, is one of them. Even assuming that the sun has shrunk .1% per century for the past four centuries, it isn't fair to assume that it has always done so. It may have shrunk more slowly, more rapidly, or even grown in the past. To say it shrunk by .1% the fifth or sixth century ago might be a reasonable guess, but to calculate it out over millions of years assuming it had to *always* continue shrinking by that much is completely invalid.

The other thing to do in creation/evolution debates is to be very, very skeptical of numbers, experiments, observations, etc. that you can't personally look at and examine for yourself. This article is a good example of it. All they give you for proof that the sun is shrinking like this is here:

<font face="Arial" size="3">Recently, "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per centuryâ?¦corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour." </font>

And then there's a footnote to a paper in Phyics Today, "Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979," which disturbingly isn't by the guys mentioned above.

That's all you get--which sure isn't much to go on. We know what paper those guys were working from, but we don't know what data they examined, what assumptions they made, how they did their math, etc. It's all behind the curtains, and that's good reason to distrust it; the ICR article is all interpretation, and no exposition.

That's something to beware of. Strange things (and sometimes entirely wrong things!) get published in academic journals sometimes, and furthermore people sometimes interpret even solid science in strange ways. And that's *especially* true in creation/evolution discussions. The subject is so polarized and dogmatic that even respectable, smart people make strange mistakes all the time. If you can't check the numbers yourself, you'd be well advised to be very, very skeptical about whether the calculation's good.

If you're looking to do research on young earth creationism, however, you are on the right site. ICR is probably the biggest one; another good one is www.answersingenesis.org. To look at all sides, you should probably also check out www.reasons.org, one of the better sites for old earth creationism, www.talkorigins.org--probably one of the bigger evolutionist sites, and also visit www.arn.org for the ID movement--people who believe we were intelligently designed, whether said designer created us, evolved us, or whatever.

As a warning, though, all of the sites I've linked above can be scientifically misleading at times--ICR, AIG, and Talkorigins are probably the worst culprits, but they all do it. So keep your wits about you.

-Drak

So meaty....all these fossils, which by the way are MILLIONS of years old, were made by what....angel snot?

I'd like to know how they managed to overlook Jupiter.

Like, how could the second most massive object in the solar system be so easily overlooked in their "science".

teehee ;P

EDIT: WTF, I don't even remember posting this....lol

One day I was sitting outside and saw a car drive by. Over the 10 seconds I saw the car for, it went from a speed of 20MPH to 10MPH.

Realizing that this could be the discovery of a lifetime, I whipped out my trusty TI-82 calculator and did some quick calculations.

The car was deccelerating by the rate of 1 MPH per second. How fast I thought, was the car going before I observed it?

Well, I figured since the rate of change must indeed be constant as all good scientists know, I started to do some figures...

1. 10 seconds back... Car at 30 MPH
2. 100 seconds back... Car at 120 MPH
3. 3 Years, 351 days, 0 Hours, 13 Minutes, 20 seconds... Car at 125,000,020 MPH

I was flabbergasted by my discovery as I thought the fastest land based vehicle was less that 500MPH. Needless to say, I am currently working on this research with prominent scientists and am fully confident that my Nobel prize will be announced any day now.

flip, I think you misunderstand their point -- their point seems to be that, since the sun obviously wouldn't have ever stretched all the way to Jupiter, the sun itself can't be that old. This is, of course, an unwarranted extrapolation of short-term data. You'd think creationists would know better than this, since that's the main point on which evolution is (rightly) criticized. But your response doesn't relate at all to their point, which is why nobody on that site would ever try to address your argument. Their argument is flawed, but your response is equally flawed. Tetrad's response, on the other hand, is right on -- "400 years of data, *eyes roll* that's definitely enough to extrapolate for billions of years"

Topher, genetic algorithms relate only loosely to biological evolution. The way they deal with populations (the strongest 1000 individuals survive, for example) tends to be fairly unreasonable. In particular, genetic algorithms tend to subject populations to extreme selective pressure, and assume complete survival of a large number of transitional forms. Unfortunately, usually selective pressure of that level tends to result in very very low survival of all but the optimum forms. I have yet to see a genetic algorithm deal with population size, rather than just ratio -- but as Marjorie Asmussen's "Regular and Chaotic Cycling in Models of Ecological Genetics" in Theoretical Population Biology, v16, 172-190 (1979) showed, accounting for population size in genetic calculations leads to some extremely weird results. Since genetic algorithms are used for optimization, rather than actual evolutionary calculations, they try to avoid "extremely weird results". I think that's the most important thing to note -- genetic algorithms aren't used in biology, they're used in optimization, and they're balanced in such a way as to work well for optimization while not being particularly relevant for biology.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> If they can watch mount everest gain less than a centimeter a year, I think they can measure 5 feet an hour.

Edit: by the way, I'm a nerd not an idiot</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meathead, heres five bucks. Go down to the market and buy yourself a clue. They can measure Mt. Everest because *gasp* its actually HERE on THIS PLANET. We can climb the damn thing and use GPS to see where, and how high up we are. The sun, on the other hand, is some distance away. Unless you have a ship with something roughly the equivilent to an ion-drive with inertial dampeners with heat shielding able to withstand millions of degrees that we don't know about, you can't prove that "5 feet/hr" crap at all.

Concession accepted.

even if the fuzzy IRC publication was true (although i'd rather follow Drakonas criticism of it) and evolution was not possible...

...it still would not mean that Creatonism was the only other explanation. What about considering a third factor?

MD, is there actually a GPS unit on top of Everest? (Climbing it is not a trivial thing -- it's not like you could just get up and put one there in the morning.) That seems like a fairly important thing for you to establish. I don't happen to know either way -- do you know how they measure Everest?

I thought it was triangulation from a couple of known points on the ground--I can't imagine someone would climb up to the peak carrying surveying equipment just to measure it! Though I guess they might fly...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
...Climbing it is not a trivial thing...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course it's trivial! They hiked a frickin' IMAX Camera up there didn't they? How hard would a GPS be.

I could have gone into the fact that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, or that the moon is getting further away, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the rotation of the galaxy, or the fact that all galaxys are getting further away, etc, etc, etc.

I believe they use doppler radar from satelites to determin the height of mountains like Everest.

A quick google search reveals that over the past few years, Everest has been measured with GPS units and found to be growing, but that it was already theorized to have been growing for years before. Also note that the GPS unit they took was redesigned just a few years ago, because the last set of equipment was "too heavy and bulky for the climbers to drag to the top." If you'd ever been in surveying, you'd realize they're not talking about little palmtop GPS's -- to get the level of sensitivity they require, they'd probably need at least half a dozen fairly large GPS units (better than the one linked there, but of similar size.)

Now, the question still remains, can they measure changes in the radius of the sun from earth? They can measure changes in Everest's height using GPS units, essentially just triangulating the position of several points on the mountain from several sattelites. Can they reasonably measure changes on the sun, which is much larger and much farther away, without using GPS's? They did manage to measure the radius of the earth fairly accurately, even before the advent of GPS's.

The problem is not in the measurement -- it's in the interpretation that the sun has been constantly changing radius, based on the currently changing radius. If you're going to assume something constantly changing, it makes much more sense to assume constantly changing volume than radius (though neither are warranted). Assuming volume changes constantly will at least give you an approximation that's valid for a few years longer.

Meathead, in most of those cases, you'd be making the very same mistake -- extrapolating data beyond what's valid. With respect to the second law of thermodynamics, tell me, do you know how much entropy changes when a strand of DNA is created?

no, but I do know all data has to come from somewhere, If that DNA strand starts to get more complex, then we have a problem.
all recorded mutations are a loss of information, very few are beneficial(blind cave fish are one example). besides, Trylobites had the best eyes in the world(they could see through stone), natural selection says the best survives. why can't we see through walls?

Natural selection only says that those which are best ADAPTED survive (with a higher probability). Although i don't know anything about Trylobites (weren't they from a SciFi-movie?), it may have been necessary for some further down generations of their childrens to develop other, more important capacities of perception, like seeing things far away. These might have been incompatible with the "seeing through stone"-capabilities, which were then discontinued.

1) trylobites are very real( I have a one in my room)
2) They could see close to a mile in murky water, that beats any of today's cameras. They say they were simple unevolved life just because they were at the bottom of the strata.