Is the sun shrinking? No

[eMTee]

Does not the sun use it's Recourses? and does it not weaken?

Would the sun NOT have been bigger or stronger a million years ago and older? would it not have had more fuel to run on?

 

Does the consept that the creationists have, not work with dust on the moon and it's age?

[eMTee]

Ah yes, that argument again. It seems like creationism is based on warped logic, misunderstanding of science, misrepresentation of data, ignoring all the problems with creationism, and lots and lots of strawmen. It is telling that they haven't produced a single shred of evidence or a valid argument to support their position. Of course that won't happen, since we now know a lot more about the universe, and it supports other theories. It's just weird that they don't go all the way and accept a flat Earth, for example.

What problems does creation have?

 

You know a whole lot about the universe and Earth and all that. Given a pie in slices, how big would your piece be compared to the unknown?

 

Excuse me about the flat Earth, but did not the athiests believe in a flat Earth as well as the Bible believers in Columbus's time? about the Bible claiming a "flat Earth" I think to my knowlege, you only have one reason to say that..and that is when the Bible mentions Pillers being a foundation.

[Tormod]

Does not the sun use it's Recourses? and does it not weaken?

Would the sun NOT have been bigger or stronger a million years ago and older? would it not have had more fuel to run on?

 

Does the consept that the creationists have, not work with dust on the moon and it's age?

 

This is the kind of post that does *exactly* what Stargazer says. It poses creationist questions without providing proof.

 

Yes, the sun uses it's resources. It does not grow weaker, it grows stronger. It will eventually grow into giant and then puff off it's vast outer layers in a giant explosion. The question posed in this thread is whether the sun is shrinking or not - and no, the sun is not shrinking.

 

The moon is almost as old as the earth and it was most likely created during an impact between the earth and a planetesimal, which has been discussed several times here at Hypography.

[Tormod]

Excuse me about the flat Earth, but did not the athiests believe in a flat Earth as well as the Bible believers in Columbus's time?

 

This has also been discussed before. That people believed in a "flat earth" is a myth created in the 1800s.

 

For example, here is an old thread where it popped up (look down on or two posts):

 

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149&page=2&pp=10&highlight=flat+earth

[paultrr]

You are welcome to do so and so is everyone else.

 

 

 

Yes, of course you are. But keep in mind that it is important to point out *why* - not everyone is used to reading your arguments and knowing your position. This applies to everyone, of course (including myself...).

 

 

 

Well. This is a difficult question. Each viewpoint is valid but obviously not from another's viewpoint (ah, please understand that correctly). If we as atheists demand that creationists respect our views, we also need to respect their views. We can argue against it, and fight if we want, but we still need to follow the rules of the game.

 

I have no problems accepting that *you* think that a viewpoint is invalid. I also know I can have a tendency to both think and post stuff which conveys that idea, too. But we cannot hold a monopoly on truth. We can only point out where we think they are wrong, and take it from there.

 

You bring up some very good points. I think the problem is that truth even though we all tend to think it is something absolute is at points actually something that is experiential and in the eye of the beholder. I point this out in spite of the fact that I too find most of the arguments used by Creationsist in general full of problems and showing at times a lack of scientific understanding. Their arguments to them seem self consistant as do our own arguments to ourselves. Yet, both sets of arguments cannot be right sence they tend to exclude each other. For the Creationists they have the truth. For us we have the truth. We may can state with absolute certainity that our presentation is backed by the evidence. But they, with their acceptance of God by faith, also believe they have the evidence chain also. The problem is the chain of evidence used differs. We do not tend to recognize their chain of evidence as any sort of evidence. They think our chain not only has problems and lacks the entire big picture. It is true that even if order was an evidence of a Creator because we rely upon nature to answer all the questions we would not recognize that order as evidence of anything beyond nature is governed by orderly laws.

 

As scientist we really are the doubting Thomas. We want to see those nail prints in his hands. We would require that God stand before us. We would require that the preseved evidence trail should show all life in full perspective suddenly appearing with no natural explination down to and including man himself. That eliminates both gradualism and PE as possible answers all at once. Yet, when we look around us we find none of that type of evidence. So we reject their set of logic. But that does not mean that we can ignore the fact that a majority of this planet is religious weither we like that fact or not. We simply by the laws we have evolved over time do not have the right to dismiss them simply because we do not accept their logic anymore than they have the right to dismiss us. If we want heard they have the right to present their views also is a fundamental truth of the fact that we live in a world where free exchange of ideas is allowed. Free exchange of ideas should not involve name calling and holier than thou attitudes.

 

As an agnostic I too think their ideas lack hard evidence. But I also suspect that its rather like the wash water and the Baby situation in which some of their alternatives are worthy of exploring at least in open discource. Have we proved out everything we uphold as truth to the point there are no open questions on the subject? If that is the case then why is it our best models get confronted with evidence all the time from observation of the universe around us that requires us to modify those models? We forget that what we have is a theory. As theory it is subject to further research and proving. Yes, I have yet to see an alternative raised that personally floats. But that does not mean there is an alternative out there that wouldn't float. Here again truth is experiential and subject to change when evidence surfaces.

 

Are we so fearful of religion that we have to debase everyone who has a set of beliefs? Its that attitude more than anything else that makes me tend to dislike atheism almost as much as I dislike religious fundamentalism. To me a lot of athiests come across as hateful as religious fundamentalists. That hateful attitude does nothing for their cause I might add and even turns a lot of us Scientists who are agnostic off as much as being bashed all the time by the religious right. As a Scientists I think the proper attude is the one Hawking displays on the subject. He certainly does not believe in God. But he is willing to at least talk about the subject in civil ways. Another example is Carl Sagan. These are all well respected minds from the scientific community. Yet, you do not see them name calling, belittling, etc.

 

Religion in one form another is here to stay on planet earth. Our history rather proves that case out. It may not be logical to some of us to believe. But to them its also illogical to not believe. Dialog is the only means by which understanding will come, not bashing.

[eMTee]

paultrr and all you others, How can we as creationists explain in scientific form, creation? It would be quite hard to do. But based on the extreme complexity of the Earth, universe and science..it should be obvious that it had to be inteligently designed.

 

We as people know a whole lot about the universe and science, but have we even begun to skim the

surface? I don't think so.

 

How many lifetimes did it take to get to know what we know now?

 

sence all of you refuse to believe in or even consider miracles, and supernatural powers, how then can we prove to you that there is a god? if not threw creation and logic.

[Harzburgite]

....based on the extreme complexity of the Earth, universe and science..it should be obvious that it had to be inteligently designed.

This is the nub of the problem. You, as a creationist, believe the very existence of the Universe obviously demands a creator. A scientist does not take anything at face value, but demands proof. She may begin by investigating some obvious relationship, formulating a hypothesis to explain it. But this hypothesis will be tested, and discarded if found wanting.

In science, faith may motivate the pursuit of knowledge, but it does not determine its acquisition.

[paultrr]

paultrr and all you others, How can we as creationists explain in scientific form, creation? It would be quite hard to do. But based on the extreme complexity of the Earth, universe and science..it should be obvious that it had to be inteligently designed.

 

We as people know a whole lot about the universe and science, but have we even begun to skim the

surface? I don't think so.

 

How many lifetimes did it take to get to know what we know now?

 

sence all of you refuse to believe in or even consider miracles, and supernatural powers, how then can we prove to you that there is a god? if not threw creation and logic.

 

That's the main problem. You try and prove "God" with a sliderule. However, if you try and prove a mechanism by which say life first got started you already have more common ground with science than by trying to start with the God equation first. If, any part of the Bible was or is true the general gist is that God uses nature. Find that natural path as a common ground.

[bumab]

Exactly. Proving the existance of God with nature is a odd task. The only way to find evidence is to find some place where it's not working right and requires regular supernatural intervention, which would somehow imply it wasn't done right in the first place.

 

Perhaps the origin of life, or my pet idea, free will, could show the way. After all, people are supposed to be made in God's image. The transition from chimp-like ancestor to thinking, reasoning beings perhaps had a little help. But those are more metaphysical questions at this point, and definitly more into philosophy then science.

[C1ay]

But based on the extreme complexity of the Earth, universe and science..it should be obvious that it had to be inteligently designed.

lefthttp://hypography.com/forums/images/smilies/umno.gif[/img]The only thing obvious to me is that nature is complex, not that some deity is responsible for nature. There is no need to invoke magic to explain that which you cannot understand.

 

 

sence all of you refuse to believe in or even consider miracles, and supernatural powers, how then can we prove to you that there is a god? if not threw creation and logic.

You can't so you need to quit telling us that we need to believe there is a god simply because we exist. That fact that we exist proves nothing about how or why we exist.

[eMTee]

This "made in God's image" may not (I say that very strongly) mean made in "the physical image of God", but may mean, made with three parts, body, soul and spirit, (this is a philosophy) the "God-head" is also of three parts, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Now I do not say that this is the correct interpretation of the Bible, But I think there are many who like to misinterprate this.

[Boerseun]

eMTee:

 

I have read your postings for a while now, and I have to agree with Paul that there is nothing to be gained by name-calling and atheist-bashing or believer-bashing. So I will refrain from doing that.

The problem that the believers have with atheists, is that there is no reward inherent in atheism. An atheist dies, and decomposes into his/her constituent molecules, which gets absorbed back into the ecosystem. There is no Heaven as a reward for an atheist, and no Hell as punishment for not living correctly.

There is merit in this, from a scientific point of view.

What the believers do, that atheists find lacking, is to believe doggedly in an unprovable set of ideas and concepts, not to mention their arrogance (and here I include every monotheistic belief, Christians, Muslims, and the like) in believing that they, and only they, have got the right idea. This has lead to countless wars and unneeded suffering, even though there is no proof at all to support their views. And, they get told, the reward is in the afterlife. So, nobody who qualifies to visit Heaven or Hell (death being the only way to gain access to these mythical places) can return to show some photos or bring evidence to prove that the reward being dangled like a carrot is in fact the truth.

This is extremely unlikely, from a scientific point of view.

 

Now. This is a science forum. You will not convince a single atheist of your point of view in a science forum. I do agree that you take your evangelical responsibilities as laid out in the Bible pretty serious, and I respect you for that. I just think that you are using the wrong platform to place your views. Although it is your prerogative, and I'm not a moderator or hold any authority in these forums at all, I would appreciate it if you could stick to the issues at hand. Science-related questions in science-related forums do not need or want supernatural explanations.

 

Please stick to the topics - and if you do want to start a thread specifically for religious issues, you're more than welcome to. I think a good topic would be wether Hell is endothermic or exothermic. THAT's a science-related religious topic.

[Tormod]

Are we so fearful of religion that we have to debase everyone who has a set of beliefs? Its that attitude more than anything else that makes me tend to dislike atheism almost as much as I dislike religious fundamentalism. To me a lot of athiests come across as hateful as religious fundamentalists.

 

Agreed. Yet simply being an atheist is not the same as being hateful or ignorant, as some people tend to think. Atheism is (as we have discussed so many times now) not a "faith in no god" but a non-faith. Creationism is non-scientific to a lot of scientists whether they are atheists or not, because the tools and arguments used are completely ignorant of the scientific method.

 

The only reason to fear religion is the tendency of many religious people to confuse faith and scientific truth. Like I have said many times over, there is no "absolute truth" in science, whereas there is in religion. The difference is that to accept the absolute truth of religion you need to have faith in it - whereas to accept the truths of science you need to have an understanding of what the scientific method is and not blindly accept theories without understanding what they are about.

[blazer2000x]

I didn't know the sun didn't shrink, I went to a Christian school, and have since found that the curriculum "warped" the truth a bit to fit its arguments. Anyway, you may have forgotten that their are some things which cannot be explained away by science, and in so they remain as proof, albeit to what is unceirtain. Such is the case with miracles. It's not hard to find a record of some occurence simply by surfing the web, and most can be attributed to chance. Here are three which I found to be a little much to be a result of chance:

 

1.

 

England (1996)

Until seven years ago, Jean Neill of Rugby, England, spent her days in a wheelchair, often suffering almost intolerable pain. Her suffering began when she broke her back in a fall, after which she spent nearly four years, more or less permanently, in hospital, and underwent 10 unsuccessful operations. To add to her misery she was involved in a road accident as a result of which she lost most of her sight and suffered three heart attacks.

 

Seven years ago, while on a waiting list for yet another operation, she attended a religious youth gathering in Birmingham. Six weeks before the meeting she had two dreams. In the first she saw herself die on the operating table. In the second she saw herself in a large hall being prayed for by a tall man with a foreign accent. She also saw herself get up out of her wheelchair and run.

 

Six weeks later at the meeting in Birmingham, the evangelist came up to Jean shortly before the meeting was about to end. Jean later learnt that the Holy Ghost had told him that she was to be the greatest miracle of the evening and that he would see her walking. The evangelist prayed that the healing power of God would flow through her. Her eyes opened and she could see again. Her lungs filled with air. Her crippled hip became normal. Her pain disappeared along with her paralysis. She could stand erect and she could walk. Beside herself with joy she ran through the crowd gathered in the hall and embraced total strangers.

 

Her doctors were speechless with amazement and have no explanation of how someone who had been in a wheelchair for 25 years could suddenly be healed. (Source: Evangelical Broadcasting Company, Holland, 1996 )

 

 

 

 

2.

 

There was an atheist couple who had a child. The couple never told their daughter anything about the Lord. One night when the little girl was 5 years old, the parents fought with each other and the dad shot the Mom, right in front of the child. Then, the dad shot himself. The little girl watched it all. She then was sent to a foster home. The foster mother was a Christian and took the child to church. On the first day of Sunday School, the foster mother told the teacher that the girl had never heard of Jesus, and to have patience with her. The teacher held up a picture of Jesus and said, "Does anyone know who this is?" The little girl said, "I do, that's the man who was holding me the night my parents died."

 

 

 

 

3.

 

A young man who had been raised as an atheist was training to be an Olympic diver. The only religious influence in his life came from his outspoken Christian friend. The young diver never really paid much attention to his friend's sermons, but he heard them often. One night the diver went to the indoor pool at the college he attended. The lights were all off, but as the pool had big skylights and the moon was bright, there was plenty of light to practice by. The young man climbed up to the highest diving board and as he turned is back to the pool on the edge of the board and extended his arms out, he saw his shadow on the wall. The shadow of his body, was in the shape of a cross. Seeing that image created such an unusual and strong response that instead of diving, he knelt down and finally asked God to come into his life. As the young man stood, a maintenance man walked in and turned the lights on. The pool had been drained for repairs.

[eMTee]

The problem that the believers have with atheists, is that there is no reward inherent in atheism. An atheist dies, and decomposes into his/her constituent molecules, which gets absorbed back into the ecosystem. There is no Heaven as a reward for an atheist, and no Hell as punishment for not living correctly.

The problem that the Christian believers is not that the atheists have no reward other than to decompose into dirt, but that they live their whole lives believing this..and then find out that they where wrong all their lives.

 

nobody who qualifies to visit Heaven or Hell (death being the only way to gain access to these mythical places) can return to show some photos or bring evidence to prove that the reward being dangled like a carrot is in fact the truth.

 

How can one bring photos back from their experience after death..Kodak moment. that is quite impossable, and such a ridiculous request to ask for.

 

You have herd of people who "died and went to Heaven and came back" such as the people say..and you surely have herd of the same thing with Hell..and others that say that they saw themselves, as hey floated above themselves?I have herd of those too. Are these people all liers, or delusional? What better and as capable evidence can you possably ask for other than "eye witness" and word of mouth? none. So when you expect some one to bring somthing back..that is impossable, and you should know it..maybe you do..and thats why you ask.

 

This is a science forum. You will not convince a single atheist of your point of view in a science forum.

Can a single person lay aside science for a moment? Oh well

 

Like I have said many times over' date=' there is no "absolute truth" in science[/quote']

What is all involved in science?

[Tormod]

Like I have said many times over, there is no "absolute truth" in science

What is all involved in science?

 

The difference between religion and science is that religion proclaims absolute truth, and these must be believed in order to reach salvation (that is why it is called faith-based religion). Absolute truth need not be tested, and in many cases cannot be tested (like the ideas of heaven and hell). In many religious communities, questioning the absolute truths is considered heresy.

 

Scientific truth is not absolute. It is based on the scientific method which requires that evidence is gathered in specific ways, that theories are documented and testable, that experiments may be repeated by others, and that predictions may be made and observed.

 

That distinction is very important. It is why science can be freely discussed whereas religion cannot. It is one of the reasons we try to curb the preaching of religion here at the Science Forums - science and religion are not compatible, but they may be discussed as long as one remembers that there is a ravine of differences between how the world is seen through the eyes of science, and through the eyes of religion.

 

The notion of absolute truth has also been discussed before. We don't have one single thread for it - it is spread around in many topics - but you'll find it if you look around.

[GAHD]

The problem that the Christian believers is not that the atheists have no reward other than to decompose into dirt, but that they live their whole lives believing this..and then find out that they where wrong all their lives.

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't, eh empty?

Speaking soly for myself, I would love it if some supreme being came to me in person and said "Hi, I'm 'God'. I exist, watch me turn the moon into green cheese and take you there to talk..." then proceded to lay out the entire structure of Life, the universe, and everything. Doesn't seem to be happening though, maby if I blaspheme in the middle of a feild in he middle of a raging thunderstorm crying out for old J.C.'s pops to strike me down if I'm wrong...did that for shock effect allready, still here, not stricken. I could even take the phonetics of my name and declare myself GAHD in front of a hord of religious zelots, If I were stricken down for it'd be by mortals, not some Vengeful Divine Being.

 

You have herd of people who "died and went to Heaven and came back"...Are these people all liers, or delusional?...etc...

In short; yes that is highly likely.

 

 

Can a single person lay aside science for a moment? Oh well

Can you renounce your faith for a moment? How about your severely edited Religious tome?

 

Either way, The sun's supposedly still a ball of slowly growing nuclear flame.