creation vs evolution

"According to official sources, the Sun is shrinking." False. Those sources assumed that the solar diameter was dependent on its luminosity. They thought that a brighter sun was bigger. So when the sun seemed to be brighter in 1863 than in 1953, it was initially believed that the sun had shrunk. We have since shown that the luminosity of the sun fluctuates greatly. It has been brighter and dimmer than either of those time periods since. The luminosity has no direct bearing on the diameter. Those studies are outdated and verifiably false. There is also the issue with solar eclipses that have been recorded throughout the past few hundred years. If the sun were as much larger as you're suggesting, then the moon would never have been able to totally obscure the sun, but it did do that. The MASS of the sun is decreasing, yes, but the diameter has not been changed to any measurable degree. "...therefore how you can argue that the UV radiation from the sun is at all beneficial to us humans does just blows my mind." UV radiation also directly causes the conversion of cholesterol into Vitamin D within out skin. Sunlight also inhibits the production of melatonin during daylight hours to promote a sleep-wake cycle. I could go on and on. The sun IS good for us. Just because the sun would be too intense if the atmosphere were removed doesn't mean that it is bad. Think of it like this: Oranges are good for you, right? So if you ate one, you'd be healthier. What if you ate two? What if you ate ten? What if you ate 100? Eventually, your stomach would explode. So, are oranges actually bad for you? No, they are not. In the same way, the sun (including its UV radiation) are essential to human life. Without the sun, we would die. Without its UV radiation, we would be plagued by diseases, and a lot of research has shown that that's the case in latitudes further away from the equator and in cases where individuals avoid the sun completely. "How long would it take you droping the toothpick for you to create a world?" As for abiogenesis, yes, it has been performed. Its been proved possible. How long would it take to create a world while dropping toothpicks? Billions of years should do it. Aren't you the one that suggested it took a day? "No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation." This is false. Early "eyes" were simple, photoreceptor cells. They could detect light, possibly the direction of light, and little more. They developed from photosensitive proteins. With the addition of molecules that could distinguish wavelengths, an idea of color could develop, in a basic sense of course. More so, it was for day-night stuff. Binocular vision, having two of these things, added depth perception. Basically, an eye evolved because, yes, every little piece of an eye was at one time or another useful, independent of the other pieces. As complexity grew, they evolved in ways that made each piece dependent on the others, and structures to facilitate this came about. As for the idea that systems are useless without one another, tell that to the Cladonema. He's a jellyfish with complex eyes...and no brain. Having no brain, I'm sure you've seen him at your Creationist conventions...sorry, I couldn't resist that. The same is said of each of those structures you mentioned. Why did those survive and co-evolve? It wasn't that nature just amazingly defied all odds and got it right on the first try. Those structures evolved beside COUNTLESS others which were selected out. It didn't try once and get it right once. It tried billions and billions and billions and billions of times and got it right once. In closing, Creationism has only a philosophical basis. It is fine to believe, if you want, but it is not at all a scientific theory. It is unsupportable. It starts with a premise (that a god created the Universe) and seeks out proof to validate that claim, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Evolution is a constantly refined scientific theory based on observation. It started with a question. "How did this happen?" And its the absolute best answer we have so far, based on what we can see. Thank you for this debate. I was not aware that Creationists thought some of the things they do. I appreciate expanding my knowledge of how the other side thinks and operates.