Sunday, April 22, 2007

creationsism v. evolution

Dani asked... What is your belief on the origins of life? Do you think we evolved from animals over billions of years? Why is it that humans are capable of rational thought and we have a conscience, but animals don't? In your opinion, what really sets us apart from all the other species on the planet?

I think what I like most about this ever evolving discussion (ahhh the delicious irony of a pun) is that it forces me to think through a variety of subjects and actually get my thoughts about them down in print.

It has splintered off in so many directions I'm not even sure if all points have been addressed, so if something got missed, by all means bring it up again.

Origins of life- life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago
Human evolution-
I think the first mamals appeared around 245 million years ago during the Triassic era famous for the T-Rex
I think mamals became the dominent species on the planet around 70 million years ago during the Tertiary Era
I think primitive monkeys evolved around 50 mya
I think the hominid line broke off from the evolving primate line about 4 million years ago and has splintered off into a variety off races that have finally gone extinct- all but homo sapiens sapiens

Human Capacity for Reason- Each time a creature evolves it is in response to environmental factors- competition for food, water, mates, changing climate, drought, etc... Animals evolve differently so they are not competing for the same food source. Our ancestors developed the ability to use their minds. They were not gifted with claws, speed, size, durability. They had a brain that they used to compensate for what they did not have developing tools, shelter, reliable food sources, social structures. Some discovered how to harvest seeds and plant them. Farming led to towns which led to cities. Throughout the process morals developed that were related to survival and religion developed to explain the unexplainable. Why does it rain? Who hung the moon? How do we prevent the Tigris & Euphrates from flooding? What should we do to keep our neighbors from attacking us? What happens after death?

I would recommend a book by Julian Jaynes at this point The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. It explains very clearly and quite readably how humans developed into beings with the capacity for rational thought, morals, ethics, the ability to think about the future and live beyond the moment etc... They have it at amazon if you search for the title. http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3008356-5217460?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177268528&sr=8-1 Or you may find it at your local library.

Our capacity to reason is what sets us apart from other beings on the planet. The sad thing is that not everyone chooses to think and it is a choice. It's a choice every morning when a person gets out of bed- to live in a fog or to demand clear thinking of oneself. To exercise your brain muscle daily or to let it atrophy with antipathy and laziness. Some actively choose to not use their brain, to blindly follow where they are led, to make decisions based on what feels good or what they wish was true. It can lead to all sorts of evil when people abandon reason for lies.

19 comments:

Dani said...

Yes – This is also one thing I love about blogging too is the fact that it forces you to critically analyze your arguments and get them down on paper. I’ve been blogging for over two years now, and I have gotten into countless thought provoking debates which have been very helpful and educational in determining what worldview I embrace and how to relate to others.

Well before we get into a heavy creation vs. evolution debate I would like for you to answer some of the questions from the previous post.

If you can live life more abundantly, with the security of knowing that your eternal salvation is in good hands, would it be worth it to at least explore your options?

Is atheism really good for your life? Will your life and the lives of your children be enhanced by your decision to reject your Creator?

Also, you seem to quote sources merely because they agree with the atheistic belief, but I am wondering if that’s really what YOU believe?

Any public school textbook agrees with evolution, but are you agreeing because you really believe it or because you are afraid to believe otherwise? Be honest.

See, much like everything the government school teaches, evolution is a complete LIE – probably one of the biggest hoaxes in American history, but we've all been too brainwashed to think for ourselves and we choose to be willfully ignorant of the truth. I know it’s hard to believe, but by teaching evolution they must also teach that all morality is relative because the two go hand in hand. And now we have a bunch of mindless, immoral idiots graduating school, shooting up classmates and running our country as a direct result of Darwinian theory.

If you can, pretend no one is reading this and try to forget you are an atheist for just a second...

Based on your own ability to rationally and logically think about the origins and complexity of life, does it really make sense that everything evolved from primordial slime after a cosmic accident took place and billions of years worth of random chance mutations – then poof - life? How then, does something like the soul or spirit evolve?

You see, no matter how hard science tries, evolution cannot explain our ability to reason or the emotions we have such as love and hate, sadness or joy, pain or pleasure, anger or peace of mind. Matter and energy do not have feelings, nor do they know the difference between good and evil.

*If you are interested in learning the truth, I recently posted this => SCIENCE vs. EVOLUTION - Over 3,000 SCIENTIFIC FACTS which annihilate evolutionary theory!

BigTex71 said...

Hi, Atheist Homeschooler.

I found your blog after reading a comment on my blog page.

Dani,
I will try to tone down a bit when posting. But I am a FOOL (according to you) because I don't believe in your God, so what do expect. :)

Here is a quote of yours:
"Is atheism really good for your life? Will your life and the lives of your children be enhanced by your decision to reject your Creator?

Does it really matter? All I seek is the truth. If the truth is that there is no God, how can believing in one enhance the lives of my children? Does believing in Santa Claus make him real? That is how I feel about the God of the Bible. Unfortunately I cannot allow the Bible to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of itself. Outside of the Bible, where is verifiable evidence of God? Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it. If you found it, please share. I really do WANT there to be eternal life.

"Any public school textbook agrees with evolution, but are you agreeing because you really believe it or because you are afraid to believe otherwise? Be honest.

I will change a few words here and pose basically the same question to you. "Your Bible disagrees with evolution, but are you agreeing because you really believe it or because you are afraid to believe otherwise? Be honest."

"Based on your own ability to rationally and logically think about the origins and complexity of life, does it really make sense that everything evolved from primordial slime after a cosmic accident took place and billions of years worth of random chance mutations – then poof - life? How then, does something like the soul or spirit evolve?"

It would just be... POOF -life. It would be more like... billions and billions of years, and then the basis for RNA came together. And then after billions and billions of years it evolved further, and so on.

About the soul and spirit: it didn't have to evolve because there is no such thing. You believe there is. I believe there is not. I don't recall ever finding any verifiable evidence of a spirit or a soul, that is why I don't believe in them.

"See, much like everything the government school teaches, evolution is a complete LIE – probably one of the biggest hoaxes in American history, but we've all been too brainwashed to think for ourselves and we choose to be willfully ignorant of the truth.

Again, I will change a few words and ask you the question:
"See, much like everything the Bible teaches, God is a complete LIE – probably one of the biggest hoaxes in American history, but we've all been too brainwashed to think for ourselves and we choose to be willfully ignorant of the truth."

These questions go both ways.

look_an_atheist said...

Dani asked...If you can live life more abundantly, with the security of knowing that your eternal salvation is in good hands, would it be worth it to at least explore your options? This is a version of Pascal's Wager, wouldn't a supernatural being know that I was faking on the off chance that he was real? In fact that is what I did for the first 23 years of my life. I pretended really REALLY hard that there was a god and that he would grant me eternity in heaven. My reasoning mind could just never accept it. My heart couldn't learn to fake the emotions that being born-again seemed to engender in people. To quote Dennnis Miller in Black and White "I seem to be genetically incapable of having a charismatic experience". But not for lack of desire or trying.

Is atheism really good for your life? Will your life and the lives of your children be enhanced by your decision to reject your Creator? It is not the lack of belief in god that is good for my life. It is the desire to approach life with a desire for the truth, to know the facts of reality. To demand evidence for that which is stated to rely on the validity of the senses and my ability to use my brain to interpret that which I see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and also read, experience, feel.

Dani asked Also, you seem to quote sources merely because they agree with the atheistic belief, but I am wondering if that’s really what YOU believe? I only choose atheist sources that I do believe. There are lots of atheists out there who have radically different beliefs than me. I'm a minority within a minority and it is a lonely position to be. BOO HOO Poor me. ;-)

Dani said, but by teaching evolution they must also teach that all morality is relative because the two go hand in hand tell me how moral relativity is a part of evolution. How do schools connect the 2? I abhor moral relativism and that has nothing to do with evolutino.

look_an_atheist said...

This post is in response to Dani's link to 3000 facts that disprove evolution. http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2007/04/science-vs-evolution.html

Hi Dani-

I followed your link to your blog and I see that of the 30 links your provided all of them point to the creation-evolution encylopedia at pathlights.com home page http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm

The page I began with is Chapter 1a: History of Evolutinary Theory It states...

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.


Wow, in all my looking at evolution I've never seen a scientist claim that we came from nothing. Even the big bang theory is based on all matter that became the universe being compressed into an ittybitty tiny space. Hardly nothing but rather the building blocks for everything.


2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.


Ummmm, dirt? Dirt is ground up rocks. Look at it under a microscope and they are miniature boulders, how does mini-rocks become life???? And where does any scientist claim that dirt turned into humans? Isn't it the christians who claim "ashes to ashes dust to dust"

Let's check the NIV version first
Gensis 2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Now your preferred the NEW KJV
Genesis 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So it seems rather that the creationist formula for making life is
Dust + breath from the LORD God = living being

Now I did not have time to explore the whole site so I looked around for something to sum up their proof/evidence for creationism and found the link Why Life Could Not Self-Originate http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/07prim05.htm

And it lists 30 reasons why evolutionary theory is a myth and unworkable. I thought well here we go, short concise list of their facts.

Yet of the 30 reasons, not ONE has any links to the source of their information: no studies provided, no scientists' quoted, no definitions offered, nothing but the word of pathlights to take for it.

1 - Spontaneous generation has been scientifically disproved Which studies, which scientists, what journal published their findings?

2 - Instant success would have to be necessary for the life form to survive evolution wasn't instant it was billions of years of trial and error

3 - Thousands of essential body parts and thousands more of essential chemical compounds would have to instantly form themselves still not instant, cellular evolution itself took billions of years,

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/954791066.Ev.r.html

5 - Law of mass action would immediately destroy chemical compounds Law of Mass Action states that the rate of any given chemical reaction is proportional to the product of the activities (or concentrations) of the reactants. http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-L/law_of_mass_action.html

I am curious how they interpret the law into the destruction of chemical compounds.

6 - Water is never enough to produce life chemicals Evolution doesn't claim that water = life but rather- Above the earth millions of cubic miles of atmosphere became enriched with carbon-dioxide and other chemicals spewing from volcanos and from windstorms over the lifeless continents. Rains washed the pollutants out of the air and into the oceans. Rains also eroded the continents and formed rivers to wash the silt into the oceans. The oceans became enriched with chemicals.

7 - There is no lab equipment out in nature *sigh* and this proves what?

8 - Condensation problem: Water must be carefully removed for fats, sugars, and nucleic acids to derive out of protein Please explain why this disproves anything?


9 - Precipitation problem: Enzymes would immediately be destroyed Why would rain destory enzymes?

10 - Most life chemicals not found in watery environment Like Lake Erie? The Arctic? The primordial soup?

11 - Lightning bolts only damage and kill and could not be the energy source lightning is electricity. Isn't electricity in water an electrical current? When it strikes water it only effects a limited portion of water, one lightning strike does not BAZAP the entire ocean. Does it die down and lose effectiveness or just have an effective diameter of X feet and then stop abruptly?

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen Why does the presence of oxygen mean no life originates?

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen If life cannot originate WITH oxygen why does it need continual oxygen to survive after it's anaerobic origins????

14 - Oxidized iron is found in rocks existing where life is said to have originated It is believed that formation of the solar system started 4.6 billion years ago and life was probably present on earth 4 billion years ago. The main source of energy was heat (originated from accretion, radioactive decay and meteorite impacts). This heat must have caused partial melting within the Earth resulting in separation of molten metal core and silicate mantle and subsequently release of heat and associated gases from the Earth’s interior (outgassing). The lack of oxygen would have meant the lack of ozone layer. Thus, short wave solar UV light would not have been absorbed. It is more likely that late outgassing occurred producing a slightly more reducing than today’s atmosphere dominated by carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen as N2 but also included sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen (H2), ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4). There is little doubt that the Earth possessed a hydrosphere (early oceans) 3.8 billion years ago. The evidence for this comes from the ancient rocks at Isua in Greenland. This anoxic ocean would be rich in soluble reduced (ferrous) iron. It is possible that in solutions containing reduced iron, CO2 can be reduced to formaldehyde (HCHO) by irradiation with UV light. This implies that reduced iron may have played an important role as a source of reducing power in prebiotic chemistry. The primitive atmosphere contained a lot of CO2, which is a well-known greenhouse gas. In short, the environmental conditions under which life arose on the primitive Earth were very different from those of today.

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen So now life needs no oxygen combined with oxygenless water but needs the oxygen immediately after life begins in a continual form. I need much more information on this.

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides And these peroxides would go where? They would interact with the cellular life how?

17 - Ultraviolet light in reducing atmosphere would immediately kill life and
18 - Without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer and
19 - Proteins would immediately hydrolyze and destroy themselves The rise of atmospheric oxygen occurred long before the sudden appearance of multicellular eukaryotic organisms in the later Precambrian. Oxygen was necessary but not sufficient for the evolution of multicellular eukaryotes: the rise of modern aerobic eukaryotes (fungi, animals and plants) occurred in a fully oxygenic atmosphere only after the evolution in protists of microtubule-utilising processes (mitosis and meiosis).

20 - There would not be enough chemicals available to form even the simplest protein
In primeval times the earth was a primitive place. It was sterile, as devoid of life as the moon. Many thousands of cubic miles of various mixtures of chemicals were in the oceans. Above the earth millions of cubic miles of atmosphere became enriched with carbon-dioxide and other chemicals spewing from volcanos and from windstorms over the lifeless continents. Rains washed the pollutants out of the air and into the oceans. Rains also eroded the continents and formed rivers to wash the silt into the oceans. The oceans became enriched with chemicals. Billions of chemical reactions were taking place simultaneously all over the globe in this huge pot of soup.

Sounds like a lot of chemicals to me.

21 - Nitrogen is in most biochemicals, but there is not enough concentrated nitrogen in nature to form life and
22 - There is not enough available phosporus in nature either I almost copied and pasted the whole thing, here's the link instead
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/life.html


23 - Scientists have no idea how to make fatty acids or how they could make themselves

24 - The atmosphere throughout the world would have to instantly change from no oxygen to its present oxygen-rich content again with the no oxygen to oxygen what is with this????

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue relevance?

26 - Residue problem: Since such extremely rich chemical mixtures are found in living things, we should find residues of them in nature, but they do not exist why should residues be found in nature?

27 - Accidental formations of amino acids would produce equal amounts of left- and right-handed forms which exist in animal life Is this saying that animals are equally left and right handed? Or is it wondering why humans aren't equally right or left handed.

28 - Dissolution problem: Even if correct chemicals gather together, the next instant they would spontaneously disintegrate by forming with other chemicals not all chemical reactions are unstable

29 - Immediate, complete duplication and reproduction of DNA, Protein enzymes, fats, cells, etc. would be needed for survival again with the instant and immediate

30 - There is not the remotest possibility life could originate by itself. There is not enough time and space in all the universe and in all eternity to product our present myriad of living species on earth sources? scientists? journal publications? evidence? testing?



WOW I bet no one reads all that bunk. I bet you scrolled down to the bottom to see if I had anything else to say. WHEW. Made my own head hurt.

I'm going to end this then re-read the posts, make sure I address the other issues in a seperate comment/post.

But as far as creationism as proposed by pathlights.com goes, not convinced. Not even a little. Do you have anything else?

Dani said...

Hey - I know this is a lot of stuff - makes my head spin too. Here are a few things to think about, then I will some back and answer more questions.

As far as evolution taking billions of years, what the creation scientists are saying is that unless life happened instantaneously with all the functioning parts, life would have not survived. Even one missing component, liver, heart, lungs, intestines, brain waves ect., the body could not work.

Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.

So let me ask you this: Which came first, proteins or DNA? The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

The Bible states that God created life according to kinds. The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, trees produce trees, and humans produce humans. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Think about this => Sexual Reproduction:

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

Evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, yet the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

Considering scientific laws of thermodynamics, we know that the planets and stars are burning and one day they will burn out. Just imagine how much energy the earth received from the sun billions of years ago!

Consider this => The Sun is Shrinking

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 century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour." The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years.

What does the shrinkage of the sun have to do with creation and evolution? The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.

How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years. It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.

One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The time at which the earth first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size of the sun should have been double its present size. The change in the size of the sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins.

Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the earth must be less than 100 thousand years old. The sun, 20 million years ago, would have been so large that it would have engulfed the earth. The earth cannot be more than 20 million years old. Those dates as upper limits rule out any possibility of evolution requiring hundreds of millions of years. However, the tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during the Biblical time since creation would be so small as to go almost unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with recent creation.

The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.

---------------------------------

Get a cocktail and relax. Take your time to think about it. I’ll be back later!

BigTex71 said...

Dani,
The sun shrinkage theory is total bunk. If that is true, then there is no way that Mercury or Venus were ever able to be planets, because the sun would have occupied its space. Those guys are idiots.

Even IF it were true that the sun is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% per century, there is absolutely no way they can discern that it has ALWAYS been shrinking and at what rate. Usually things of this nature would occur in exponential amounts and not linear.

That Creation Science site is so full of crap, I can't believe people actually believe the bullshit being delivered. But, then again, they are targeting the fundamentalist Bible believers (and I know that book is full of the same non-scientific bull.)

look_an_atheist said...

I prefer Long Island Tea to cocktails. Actually I don't know what a cocktail is, except a Tom Cruise movie from the 80's. WOW could he flip those bottles around.

SHRINKING SUN

Shrinking sun


http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=21
The Legend of the Shrinking Sun
By Dawn Huxley
Posted on: 4/5/2002

Henry Morris jumps on a flawed study and insists the Sun is shrinking, but there are a few things he seems to have forgotton.

In 1979, two astronomers examined solar meridian transit records recorded between 1836 to 1953 in various journals at the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England. At first glance, the records suggested that the Sun had decreased in diameter over several observational periods, but that study turned out to be flawed. Later, other astronomers discovered that our Sun pulsates with varying changes in “apparent” luminosity, but the mass of the solar diameter itself remains unchanged.

But true to form, the members of the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society seized upon their original data and fabricated the outrageous claim that our Sun was shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour! Even worse, they “assumed” that this shrinkage had been occurring at a steady, invariable rate throughout all of recorded history. Creationist author Henry Morris claimed that if the Sun were a million years old, then it would have swallowed Earth’s orbit inside its bloated mass. (One critic said that’s like measuring the low tide mark at dusk, and then decreasing the ocean’s depth back in time by ignoring its rise and fall.)

They’ve published dozens of books and newsletters supporting this fallacy, while conveniently ignoring the fact that if our Sun had truly been shrinking at such a swift rate throughout history, then many total solar eclipses recorded over the past three thousand years couldn’t have taken place. The Sun would’ve been too big for the Moon to obscure, but creationists dismissed such objections as “nit-picking.” Years later, many were forced to admit that they rushed to premature judgments, although some of their publications still repeat the shrinking-Sun myth because it conveniently suits their strategy.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html
The issue of the solar diameter has become of some interest recently, with the arrival of precise helioseismological data. Eddington's (1920) argument against gravitational contraction, from the frequency stability of variable stars, applies with a vengeance to helioseismology, which is much more precise. Helioseismology is so precise today, that comparison between theoretical calculations and measurements require a better knowledge of the solar radius than is currently available. Furthermore, as the sun is not a solid body, it does not have a well-defined surface at which to measure the radius (Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini 1998). The difference between different definitions amounts to a century's worth of Akridge-shrinking, making it plausible that the apparent shrinking reported by Eddy & Boornazian (1979) might well be due to systematic errors when comparing data taken over long periods of time by different observers using different instruments and, quite possibly, different definitions.



http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_shrinking_sun.HTM
PRO 1

Since 1836, the diameter of the sun has been measured to be shrinking about 5 ft. per hour. By going back in history and studying solar eclipses, scientists say that this shrinkage appears to be constant. Extrapolating backward, we find that the sun would have been so large one million years ago that no life at all could have existed on this earth. If we went back 20 million, which is still far short of the 5 billion many evolutionists claim as the age of the solar system, the edge of the sun would have touched the earth. The earth would have exploded long before the sun ever got that close.


CON 2

A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 +- 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.


A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 ± 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. The issue of surface definition is discussed at some length, leading to the conclusion that their definition is about 500 km smaller than that used in most previous estimates. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.

Dani said...

I prefer a 7&7 or margarita to drink, but I'm pregnant so only virgin drinks for me.

As for the sun, are you suggesting that it has been burning exactly the same for billions of years? That seems to go against what we know about science.

This is taken from my post titled =>
Is There Proof of God?

Let's start by making a casual observation: The Universe is real and it exists. Every logical and rational thinking person on the planet must first admit this fact. If the Universe did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it.

So the question arises:“How did the Universe get here?”

There are only three possibilities to this question:

Now let's examine these three possibilities:

# 1. The Universe has always been here:
FALSE
- Scientifically speaking, we know for a fact that the Universe could not have always been here because it would violate the laws of physics. Natural laws of the Universe have no exceptions. The Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine because it would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. If the Universe had always been here, the sun and stars would have burnt out by now and everything would be cold and dark.

# 2. The Universe came into existence on it's own:
FALSE
- We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing. Consider the law of cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. The effect cannot be greater than the cause - Not only is it illogical and irrational, it is scientifically impossible!

# 3. A Supernatural Being created the Universe:
TRUE
- Since 1 & 2 are false, we must examine a third option which is the only rational, logical, and scientific possibility: An infinite, supernatural Creator who exists outside the natural laws of the Universe created everything. There is no other possibility! God is the first cause - He is the author and Creator of life.

-------------------------

Tomorrow I will try to answer any questions that have not been addressed. Right now I only have time to copy and paste previous comments I have already made. We seem to be getting off on a lot of tengents so if you have anything specific you want me to address please let me know.

Thanks again for taking the time to go over this with me.

BigTex71 said...

Dani,

And you consider US fools?

# 1. The Universe has always been here:
FALSE - Scientifically speaking, we know for a fact that the Universe could not have always been here because it would violate the laws of physics.


The laws of physics are not set in stone. No one knows everything there is to know about physics on our planet , let alone universal physics. (ie. magnetic theory)

# 2. The Universe came into existence on it's own:
FALSE - We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing.


Actually, this seems to prove #1 to be possible.

# 3. A Supernatural Being created the Universe:
TRUE - Since 1 & 2 are false, we must examine a third option which is the only rational, logical, and scientific possibility: An infinite, supernatural Creator who exists outside the natural laws of the Universe created everything.


Because the other two options are not possible is had to be ONLY ONE OTHER OPTION (ie. God) That logic is so utterly stupid, I can't believe you could possibly believe it.

There is no other possibility!

Says who?

Dani, you need professional mental help! Please go seek help before you start murdering your children in the name of the Lord! You are a freaking lunatic.

look_an_atheist said...

***TWEEEET*** ***FOUL***

Foul on #71 Bigtex- Name Calling

Dani- step to the freethrow line and make a free point.

Bigtex, you wait on the sidelines with some bible verses to demand explanations for or the atheist idea of your choice.

~~~~
Well that's what you get when I blog before breakfast.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA The ref laughs like a maniac.

Dani said...

I am not going to respond to BigText's ignorant remarks. I'll post more of my response on your latest post.

BigTex71 said...

Ok, ref... so I threw an elbow and Dani just happened to run into it. My bad. I stepped over the line. Now I see why so many people talk about Dani making people get frustrated.

But I apologize, Dani. I am sorry that your thinking baffles me and causes me to go out of character.

I am not going to respond to BigText's ignorant remarks.

This reminds me of an old saying... something about a pot and a kettle... :)

I'm sure you are probably doing it on purpose, but the name is Big Tex, not BigText.

johngalt666 said...

The universe has always existed and always will exist.

Some theists find this difficult to accept, and they argue that god makes the universe easier to understand.

Yet, while the theist complains of difficulty accepting the notion of an eternally existing universe, consider the alternative.

We must conceive of a supernatural, unknowable, eternally existing being, and, moreover, we must conceive of this being creating matter from the void of nonexistence.

It is strange that those who object to the idea of eternal matter display little difficulty in accepting the creation of something out of nothing.

While the idea of an eternal universe may be initially difficult for some people to assimilate, the theist's alternative is an exercise in fantasy.

johngalt666 said...

Now saying that the universe always existed is not the same thing as saying it always existed as it does now.

The universe is always changing. (evolving, so to speak)

The earth has not always been here and it will not always be here in the future.

The universe has always been here. Existence. There is nowhere else to be.

Lui said...

It should be obvious to all concerned that Dani, in matters of science, is a complete retard. Check out her blog, and see how she falls back on lurid appeals to emotion when she runs out of options, EVERY SINGLE TIME. She invokes science, yet in order to explain complex mimicry in, say, insects, she invokes "sin"!It's absolutely hilarious. Instead of actually understanding anything about what she's saying, she spouts off bullcrap from creationist websites and thinks that the objections she raises are actually difficult for atheists and evolutionists to counter, completely oblivious (or just indifferent) to the fact that these objections have been answered a millions times in the literature - but it doesn't matter: when I DO counter her arguments, she keeps on repeating them as though I had never done so. "Evolution is random" seems to be one of her favourite dim-witted "objections" - one that she repeats endlessly and mindlessly even after careful explanation of the non-random nature of natural selection. She is so clueless to the point that she thinks that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, something that a chemistry undergraduate could easily understand is utterly erroneous. It seems that when you have God on your side, you don't need to investigate anything. And yet she has the nerve to talk down to others.

"*If you are interested in learning the truth, I recently posted this => SCIENCE vs. EVOLUTION - Over 3,000 SCIENTIFIC FACTS which annihilate evolutionary theory!"

More like 3,000 lies and distortions for the gullible and vulnerable. And while we're on the topic of "learning the truth", why don't YOU do it? Watching Dani trying to sound scientific is embarrassing. It's like having a virgin tell someone how to have sex. Dani, I have endeavoured to be polite and patient with you. I have tried to reason with you. But enough is enough. You're simply a moron, and you'll likely always be. Religious fundamentalism has rotted your brain. More than anything, I rebut your arguments for two reasons: to piss you off, and to not deny you the false sense of security that you’re right. You have no place whatsoever judging other people, for you are someone with such a diminished ability to think that you insult the intelligence of anyone living in this century just by giving your opinion.

"As far as evolution taking billions of years, what the creation scientists are saying is that unless life happened instantaneously with all the functioning parts, life would have not survived. Even one missing component, liver, heart, lungs, intestines, brain waves ect., the body could not work."

Absolute rubbish. That's not what they're saying AT ALL. Please show us where they "say" all this (and show us where THEY say it, not where creationist propagandists say that they say it).

"Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible."

That's where natural selection comes in, lamo. You're raising a non-point. Funny how you claim to know the "TRUTH" (complete with caps, as though that gives it more weight) yet you distort the other side's arguments in order to bolster your own. Your whole world view is built upon lies and distortions, so I suppose I can't expect anything more honest form you and your ilk. The way you reply to messages is indicative of that. It's always been clear that you couldn't care less about science.

Actually, now that I'm reading through this horseshit of yours, I remember that I read it recently on your blog, and that I replied to much of it. Did you reply to my rebuttal? Of course not. You simply reposted your bogus arguments here. Perhaps you think that you'll eventually fool someone? You won't.

"As for the sun, are you suggesting that it has been burning exactly the same for billions of years? That seems to go against what we know about science."

Ummmm, no. That's what YOU'RE saying (again, I mentioned this on your blog, with no repsonse from you. Doens't a Bible-thumping loon, you should know that the Good Book has something to say about bearing false witness).

In short, Dani is feather-weight know-nothing.

Lui said...

I meant "to deny you the false sense of security..."

look_an_atheist said...

BigText- sounds rather like LargeFont doesn't it?
;-D

Hey there JohnG thanks for stopping by my blog! You have made some excellent points and I hope Dani will address them.

Hi Lui, you also made some good points, if Dani can look past the name calling to address them I would love to hear her response to them. It's possible though that she will use the name calling as a reason to ignore you.

Which is unfortunate because I would like to know her response to points that BOTH JohnG and Lui made.

Come on Dani- ignore the insults, please answer their points.
:-)

Lui said...

She doesn't answer people's points, it's amazing. I've studied the way she deals with responses on her own site: it's a veritable laboratory for studying the fundamentalist mind. Her preferred method of argument is this:
1) ignore all contradictory evidence with threats and appeals to emotions, never dealing with the actual science, or at most posting something from a creationist website riddled with errors and lies; 2) continue posting the same, unaltered arguments as though objections to them had never been made and as though their scientific merit had been verified even though real scientists aren't actually retarded enough to take them seriously and do completely fine without them. Dani uses (and abuses) the LANGUAGE of science when it suits her, and at the drop of a hat, reverts back to emotions when she has nothing left to say. She claims that there are good, scientific reasons to take creationism seriously, and yet, when the discussion gets scientific, she effectively declares the science null and void. In other words, she wants special treatment. She wants to use science AS LONG AS it supports what she says, but when she's exposed, she has the gall to call other people "un-scientific"! It's obvious that she, and people like her, use science only as a shield to come out into the open, then scurry back like cowards when their ulterior motives are shown for everyone to see. Want to talk about viruses and parasites, and have a serious discussion about them and what evolutionary theory has to say about them? Forget it; she invokes "sin", as though sin was a mechanism that can build up biological complexity (can anyone even IMAGINE a real scientist talking like that?). What else CAN she talk about? She knows dick-all about science, and she clearly has no interest in it.

Ever read on one of those "choose your own adventure" books? With Dani, it's "choose your own reality".

look_an_atheist said...

Lui-
You're right. I deluded myself into thinking I was having a conversatin with a thinking being. But fundies don't USE reason- they ABUSE it to suit the purposes of making their "faith" sound plausible.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).

Things hoped for - dreams
things not seen- imagination

The world the way THEY want it to be. A place where writing truth like this TRUTH makes it more powerful and more believable.