The validity of the theory of special relativity and E=mc2 holds the key to evolution's being false

I would like to accept my opponent's truth in saying that the speed of light from the stars is in fact constant. However, there are many thoughts that must be taken into consideration when arguing this point. His first to points are correct: in a vacuum the speed of light is a constant and hence does not matter when dating the universe using the stars. But there are other areas that do not make since in this argument. 1. The angle of the earth's orbit is not precise enough to measure stars 2. Fossils and DNA do not prove that animals are related. 3. Uranium dating does not prove the age of stars. 4. His closing statement under Fossils and DNA(but I will get to that later) 1. The angle of the earth's orbit is not precise enough to measure stars. To understand this, let's establish how to tell the distance to stars. To do parallax, one needs to measure to position of a star with respect to background stars at an interval of 6 months. (because 6 months is the largest distance you will get between two positions of the Earth on its orbit around the Sun). Then the parallax is the angle made by the two positions measured for the star you are interested in. These angles are very small, only small fractions of degrees in the sky, much less that you can resolve with your eye. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... So, the only way to measure the distance is to measure the angle, essentially making an isosceles triangle. This poses two problems, the first being how does a scientist know when they are exactly on the other side of the orbit? I mean, if it is such an exact science, if they are off by just a couple hundred miles, then they could be off by several million years. The second problem is this: the angles are to big to measure. The most distant observation points available to an earth bound observer are the positions of the earth in solar orbit six months apart, say June and December. This would create a triangle of 186,000,000 miles, which equals only 16 light minutes. There are 525,948 minutes in a year. Even if the nearest star were only one light year away (and it isn't), the angle at the third point measures .017 degrees. In simpler terms, a triangle like this would be the same angle two surveyors would see if they were standing sixteen inches apart and focusing on a third point 525,948 inches or 8.24 miles away. If they stayed 16 inches apart and focused on a dot 824 miles away, they would have the same angle as an astronomer measuring a point 100 light years away. A point 5 million light years away is impossible to figure with trigonometry. The stars may be that far away but modern man has no way of measuring those great distances. No one can state definitively the distance to the stars. For a more complex and slightly different answer to the star light question, see the book "Starlight and Time" by Russel Humphry available from http://www.icr.org... 2. Fossils and DNA do not prove that animals are related. First, what are the odds of life being able to evolve? "The answer is .5 to the 12 millionth power. Which could also be stated as 10 to the 3 million 600'th power (1 with 3,600,000 zeroes after it). These are the same odds that E Coli developed 12,000,000 right-handed nucleotides by chance without one left handed nucleotide being added. The building blocks of DNA and proteins are molecules, which can exist, in both right and left-handed forms. This is called "chirality." The best result that experiments have shown has been a 3/7 chance. Meaning; from one nucleotide to the next there is a 3/7 chance that it will be the same hand as the previous nucleotide." http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com... The chance of getting life is almost nil. Now to answer the dispute over the DNA. Well, it is true that humans are 98% like apes, but our DNA is also similar to sheep and pigs. We also share 93% with cauliflower. We share 80% with bananas. Just one percent difference is a huge area to make up for. But the common DNA does not necessarily prove that the animals come from a common ancestor: it proves they come from a common designer. People do not paint pictures then say that it was a wonderful chance coincidence that it looked good. So then life and creatures, human or not, could not have happened by chance. It took an intelligent Designer to make us, who are much more complex than any picture or computer. 3. Uranium dating does not prove the age of stars. In the article that Con cited, the journalist said that uranium dating is 'stellar carbon dating'. So let's talk about the validity of carbon dating. The way that carbon dating works is stated very decently on http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org...: "Since creatures incorporate carbon-12 and carbon-14 into their bodies at about the same ratio as it occurs in the atmosphere during their lifetimes, by looking at the ratio in the atmosphere today and by comparing it to the ratio as it is found in the specimen we are examining, we are able to determine when the specimen stopped consuming more carbon-14 (i.e.. when it died). This is, of course, assuming that we know how long it takes for carbon-14 to decay and that we know that the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere today is about the same as if was during the creature's lifetime. If either assumption is wrong carbon-14 dating doesn't work." I'm sorry, but I thought that the way the scientific method was supposed to work was that a person 1) observes, 2)hypothesizes, and 3)experiment. Not in this order necessarily, but these three are necessary. So how can an assumption count as science. Also, nobody knows how much was in the fossil to begin with. So that is like me taking a candle, lighting it, letting it sit, then asking you to come in and tell me how long it has been burning. Sure, you might be able to guess at the age, maybe see how fast it is burning, but you have know idea if I disturbed it at all, maybe blew on it to make it burn faster. This is the same idea with carbon dating and, hence, uranium dating. In true science, a person cannot assume anything. 4. His closing statement under Fossils and DNA Finally, the closing remark was, "In other words, if some problem were discovered with the accuracy of dating the age of the earth or the age of the universe, the validity of evolution is not likely to be overthrown as a consequence. Scientists would attempt to figure out how conflicting data could fit within laws of nature." Wait a minute!! Scientists would attempt to figure out how CONFLICTING data COULD FIT within laws of nature?!?!? So scientist can't change the law, so they will try to figure out how to make it fit with their theory of evolution?? This is not true science, this is a mockery of science. I am not at all saying that evolution should not be taught and that creation should replace it. All I am saying is that true facts should be presented from an unbiased standpoint and left up to the individual to decide. This is true science and how life ought to work. In closing, I would like to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I am glad to have had the chance to argue this point and am willing to take the debate between evolution and creation with a challenge on its effects on any area of life. I believe that this topic is the most important one of all because it shapes a person's world view. Just think about this. If evolution is true, human life can go on anyway we want: suicide is ok because there is no wrong, murder is alright because there is no wrong, sex outside marriage is alright because there is no wrong, stealing is allowable because there is no wrong, lying is ok because there is no wrong, euthanasia. Do you really want to defend all this? Now if there is a God, we better get busy finding out who He is and what He wants? This is His universe and He can judge it and destroy it if He wants. But that also means that there is something beyond us.