Just for laughs, concede that maybe God created life on earth by fiat three and a half billion years ago. Then start going on about the evidence that life evolved after that."We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
yet sirius is an example of a red star becoming a white within the past 2,000 years. Ancient astronomers described Sirius as glowing red in the sky, Yet now it is categorized as white
he doesn't know his astronomy too well, does he. check it out on your own, but the star sirius is actually a binary star system. Sirius A is the red giant, and sirius B, the pup, is the white dwarf. Sirius A's apparent and absolute magnitude are much greater than B's is, which is why the ancients say it as a red star.
Nope. Sirius A is spectral class A0 - white or bluish white. The companion is far too faint and close to it to see naked-eye - a ten-thousandth as bright.
The description of Sirius as "red" very likely is because it looks red when it's just rising over the horizon, just like the Sun does. The first pre-dawn rising of Sirius was what told the Egyptians that the Nile was about to flood - the most important astronomical event of their year. It was red at the important moment, but once it was up in a dark sky it was the same color 3000 years ago as now.
"but my source is NASA and your source is just scientists."
NASA is scientists plus political appointees that have no clue about science. There was a recent broohaha about one that was pushing creationist propoganda. Thus just citing "NASA" doesn't mean anything -- he could be citing janitors at NASA for all you know.
"Just scientists" - that cracks me up. How about scientists in the field of study that you are debating? A PhD in astrophysics does not mean they know jack about evolution.
How can I go about proof that non-living materials can come together and form a living organism? He keeps telling me that I skip it every time he brings it up.
You can tell him that that particular discussion is waaaay beyond the scope of conversation. It requires an understanding of complexity theory, dissipative structures, and emergent systems. Then throw this paper, Crtuchfield JP, Gornerup O, 2004, Objects That Make Objects: The Population Dynamics of Structural Complexity, as an example. It's acceptable (or should be) to simply say, "I personally don't know - but here's an example of the kind of work being done on the subject. Maybe you can explain it to me." Or words to that effect.
Some, a verry small few, actualy look to find answers. Those are the ones that end up realizing after comparing the facts that evolution is false.
Let me suggest the web site of Glenn Morton, at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm. He's a Christian who used to argue against evolution, but then he had to admit it's true by looking at the facts. He's still a Bible-believing Christian, and a literalist(!), but he believes in evolution.
That happens much, much more often than anyone turning the other way, because the evidence backs up evolution, so the actual evidence is only going to turn people one direction.
He's a geologist for an oil company. Interesting fellow. I emailed him a bit after I first saw his web site. Very personable.
quote:(3)The population itself is evidence of a young planet. In 1810 the population was 1 billion. within less then 200 years the population grew to 6 billion. This meants that according the rate at which population grows at a certain rate according to poplation size. Through this study the earth can't even be a million years old.
This is easy to respond to. First, science doesn't claim that humanity has been around since the beginning of the Earth. In fact, studies indicate that Homo sapiens appeared approximately 40,000 years ago.
There have been several "population explosions" in the course of our past, one associated with clothes, one with refined hunting tools, one with agriculture, one with domesticated animals, one with industry ... in each case a technological innovation allowed greater productivity or greater adaptability.
The other thing to note is that population growth is an expotential curve -- not linear -- and only when there is no balancing force.
Thus the hominids could have existed for millions of years in balance with the predators and deaths from disease and elements, etc, and then when a technological innovation (say clothes) allowed greater numbers to survive (and breed) longer.
Usually when math says something could not have happened which has, it is based on false assumptions and bad calculations.