Undercurrent

So you are saying that a simple eye is only one step away from something that can't be classified as an eye (albeit only by you) at all.

(Incedentally, I'm sure ps418 has a good long essay on organisms which posesses the eye you can't classify as an eye.)

No, we do not think that the sun is decreasing in size because we think it is being refueled. We do not think it is decreasing in size because we observe it to be a constant size -- with instruments -- today. Any theory that predicts that the sun should be shrinking at a noticable rate is false, since we observe the sun to be not shrinking, and in the real world, observation trumps theory.

m.

P.S. Are you going to retract your statement that the earth would be uninhabitable if it was 1000km closer to the sun, now that several posters have shown it to be rediculous, or will you just hope that people will forget your lie.

Duck!

davidH, you're from Northern Ireland......

Are you a Free Presbyterian, one of Paisley's dumbfuck followers by any chance?

Just curious because they're probably the nuttiest religious group in Northern Ireland.


Duck!

Coragyps

Hmm... "the sun does not use up fuel."

That's news to the rest of us.

Kaina

Hi DavidH, welcome back. Most of your ilk post once and run for the hills, so it is refreshing to see you return to the fray. Of course you could answer some of the questions and corrections....

You said:
“Another thing - if evolution was correct- what do you believe (or maybe even know)happens at death.”

What happens when we die? Consciousness, memory and personality are consequences of the biochemical and electrical processes of the brain. These properties are dictated by genes, environment, and health, and require a supply of oxygen and energy (ATP). If the brain is changed - injured by trauma or stroke for example, or stricken with cancer - cells die, synaptic pathways are disrupted, energy metabolism can be drastically skewed. These disruptions at the cellular level mean that memories can be lost, personality changed, consciousness ended. Death is a permanent extension of this end of consciousness, and once those cellular changes occur there really is no going back. There is no magick entity of "consciousness", “soul” or “spirit” that exists apart from or longer than the biochemical workings of the brain.

If you want to assert differently, please show the evidence.

Kaina

Liquidrage

The rest of your fluff has been refuted to death and beyond.

This one is simple.

No one really knows how it all started.
Even if one chooses to belive that god did it they still would have no evidence to base that on nor would they have any insight as to how god did it.

It's called faith.
Either you have it or you don't.
Though please don't confuse faith for evidence or logic.

tgamble

Respected by who? Other creationists don't seem to respect him since they reject many of the arguments he uses.

Pantera

OK, I suppose "highly respected creationist" is something of an oxymoron. But he at least seems to be respected by the drive by trolls on the II board. Except Eternal, who once said "I don't think man lived with dinosaurs. I am not Kent Hovind" - which was possibly the funniest post he ever made.

wdog

davidH,

You have made a common mistake that a lot of creationists make. You incorrectly assume that rational people choose to believe in science like a religious person chooses to have faith in a set of religious ideas. That tactic is often used by creationists to try and lower science into the equivalent of a religious belief system, but it is not analogous. I have posted here before that our 'belief' or 'faith' is not like a religious belief since it is provisional, evolving, under constant evaluation, justified by empirical observation, and not derived from emotional needs.
Also davidH, you share this faith whether you like it or not. The scientific method that has given us evolution also has given us all our current understanding of the physical world. So when you go see the doctor or turn on your computer, you are displaying a faith in the scientific method that is actually greater than mine since I would imagine you rarely question whether or not or understanding of these things has been inaccurate or nature has changed. We all 'believe' in science david since it has proven to be accurate and there is no alternatives at the moment, same as you.

From my point of view then, that is I try and apply rationality uniformly in my life, I can't understand why a person would suddenly reject the logic that has been so accurate in favor of an emotionally held belief in something else. The real question is why would you believe anything else but science?

Asha'man

One of the biggest problems with the creationist arguement is that science is wrong. Very wrong. Incredibly wrong.

To disprove evolutionary theory in favor of creationism, you have to make a serious attack on virtually every field of science, from astronomy to geology, from biology to chemistry. The assumption is that literally millions of scientists are that far off base is just stupid.

In reality, science works. The examples are everywhere. From Mars orbiters and landers, to LCD displays on digital watches, technology you see every day of your life is clear evidence that science, and the application of science that is called engineering, works.

Perhaps an interesting task for this forum would be to assemble simple examples of technology that wouldn't work if the creationist story was true. For example, if scientists don't understand the radioactive decay of carbon-14 enough to make date measurements, then how can they understand the radioactive decay of cesuim to make atomic clocks? If our understanding of genetic mechanisms is so highly flawed, how are we able to make geneticly engineered corn?

Asha'man

wdog

About the sun....

a star can in fact derive energy from gravitational collapse (check out the virial theorem I believe) and if you could suddenly turn off the fusion in the core, the sun could burn for millions of years off the gravitational collapse, and we could still live. but the sun is in a dynamic equilibrium as the outward pressure from the fusion at the core balances the inward gravitational pressure. there are some local oscillations though, maybe some sort of harmonic oscillation set up by these two competing forces. david I think maybe you are thinking of this, or you are confused about the stellar life cycle which does predict that the sun will collapse in the future when it's hydrogen and helium have been converted to heavier elements at the core, leaving not enough to support fusion. Either way, you illustrate another frustrating aspect of creationism which is the veritable geyser of misconceptions and half-truths that creationists spout about what science really says.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Optics Guy ]</p>