Creationism is real

My opponent's resolution may be a little confusing, but I'm sure it's clear with both of us that he is attempting to prove that Creationism is true/proven by the evidence he lists. ===== The Sun Is Shrinking ===== >>>In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian cautiously announced that their studies of solar measurement records. .. <<< They presented an abstract at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society entitled "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953"[1]. It's funny, because when Russel Akridge submitted in creationist circles "Impact 82 - Sun is Shrinking", he never referenced Eddy and Boornazian. This is because they both RETRACTED their results later, the contentions against this finding was very high. The first error in this argument is to assume that the sun is shrinking, when this claim is highly contentious if not wrong. But let's get past that. Let's assume that the calculations were in fact correct. However, the second more preposterous assumption is to think that the shrinkage is CONSTANT, and not perhaps CYCLIC. It's like watching the tides go in and out in a beach and declaring that the waves always pull back and thus the world is only a few weeks old. If it was a constant rate, kind of like radioactive decay, then it would be fine and dandy for creationists to do the math and figure it all out. But the sun simply doesn't work that way. Simply put, the sun oscillates. Gravitational collapse is why the sun shrinks, but creationists falsely declare that this where the sun get's it source of energy (thus seemingly proving that the sun always shrinks). This would be to ignore the last 60 years of science, because nuclear fusion has been discovered a way that heat can be liberated in vast quantities[3]. This, among many times, shows how fallacious this argument is. ===== Big Bang Theory ===== My opponent claims the Big Bang Theory is proof of Creationism, because it "implies a specific point of creation- and specifically that time has a beginning. " While that may seem like a nice and tidy way to sweep it under the rug, Occam's Razor says otherwise. I argue that the Big Bang was caused by natural means. What was the identity of this cause? We don't know, but we know that it's possible: 1. Virtual particles Virtual particles[4][5] show the feasibility of things being uncaused, or something coming from nothing. 2. Hartle-Hawking state The Hartle-Hawking state is a wave function for the Universe. Being part of the theoretical and developing branch of quantum cosmology/gravity, the Hartle-Hawking state is a function for the initial conditions of the universe, i. e. it could explain how the Universe started. To make things even better, the Hartle-Hawking state complies with the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is basically a pre-requisite for any equation in quantum cosmology[7]. This is all for now, due to the dwindling character limits. ===== Evolution ===== >>>Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator. <<< No. The word "design" is a subjective word that only applies to the aesthetics of a biological function/formation. While some things in biology are more complicated and thus seemed "designed", evolution can properly explain how it was formed. There is no need for a middleman called "the Creator". For example, look at fractals[8]. A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts. .. "[9]. Clouds, snowflakes, lightening, and even blood vessels are examples of fractals found in NATURE. While they seemed intricate and complex, the science behind their formation is well-documented and proven. Why not the same for all life? >>>Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected)<<< No. Evolution has two basis: mutations and natural selection. Mutations are random. Natural selection is a process that is NOT random. >>>Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers. .. <<< Such as? ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's sun shrinking theory is outdated and factually inaccurate. His Big Bang argument is in violation of Occam's Razor. His argument against Evolution is filled with open claims that he has yet to back up. ---References--- 1. . http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... 2. . http://www.tim-thompson.com... 3. . http://www.evolution-creationism.us... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://scienceworld.wolfram.com... 6. . http://www.absoluteastronomy.com... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9