You completely misunderstand the theory of evolution.
The most important error you make is in believing "said systems decay in short spans." There is no support for your belief.
Also, your concept of "transition species" is totally bogus. EVERY SPECIES is equally "transitional". You only have "transitions" when you draw artificial boxes around groups and say "these are reptiles, these are birds, and I am looking for other species to fall exactly on the line I drew."
And the "leap of logic" of believing God is the ABANDONMENT OF LOGIC.
Believe what you want to believe, but every one of these indicates even further you are incapable of logical thought.
The reason we object to ID is because it has the effect of watering down the biology curriculum so that the most central result, evolution by natural selection, is drowned out in a mish-mash of bad philosophy. Of course, all this political crap has already made evolution so "controversial" that it hardly gets taught at all. But that is still too much for these pea-brained creationists.
That is, everyone is made stupider to please the ignorant. That, I believe, is BAD.
As for religion and new inventions, take a look at how on "religious" grounds, fundies are trying to block research on stem cells. *And* destroy education in biology by creating controversy over evolution where SCIENTIFICALLY, there IS NONE. Not because evolutionists are stupid or close-minded, but because the EVOLUTIONISTS ARE RIGHT.
So all you flat-earth creationists should just shut up and let the biologists do biology. Then, when you want fertility treatments so that God can give you all the dozens of children he "wants" you to have, and all the medical advances that keep you alive and healthy, you can thank all the secular medical research that makes it possible.
If you think letting religion run society is a good thing, consider comparing the Middle East to Europe.
Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.
Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.
While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1. pdf of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.
You will not convince me of the truth of your views because it is clear you are a blithering idiot with only the most limited ability for logical deduction and argument.
This is NOT equivalent to some sort of religious attachment to evolution. It is evidence of my bias against especially stupid people.
"Institute for Creation Research = icr.org" = "Not a credible source for scientific information."
The fact that you persist in making leaps of illogic based on my very clear statements means that you aren't particularly careful about logical arguments.
In my view, even theories can never be "proven false." They can only be made sufficiently implausible that people stop using or talking or thinking about them. The point is, that we *pose* and *accept* scientific theories as valid because they *suggest* experimental falsification. Not because, in practice, they *are* falsifiable.
Young earth creationism was still interesting for some time after Darwin published Origin of Species. Later developments made using Noah's Flood to explain things seem pretty silly to scientists. That some vocal nutcases haven't caught on more than a century later is what makes this all so frustrating.
Historically, the Popperian ideal does not match scientific inquiry very well. Thomas Kuhn's whole point is that reasonably "plausible" and even "proven" theories get abandoned before newer theories have accumulated enough observational evidence.
Look at Einstein's work: most of it had very little experimental support. He might not even have heard of Michelson's null result at the time of special relativity, and his quantum explanation of the specific heat of solids had *one* experimental measurement behind it. But his explanations were so compelling, they were accepted far more quickly than was justified by hard-eyed "observation."
As scientists, we obviously like to think we are playing by some hard rules like Popper suggests. In practice, I think we have to admit these rules depend a lot on calling our own fouls and on some imperfect referee blowing his whistle from time to time.
Evolution is not "the way to go" in any sort of ethical sense. I also haven't said God is non-existent; what I mean is that from the evidence and explanations I have seen, in rather great detail, the explanation of modern-day biology by evolutionary theory, and the explanation of the stars in the sky and the rocks on the Earth by a mechanistic, gigayear chronology, is far more *convincing* than the evidence and explanations offered by its opponents.
I read *lots* of the creationist websites; I also read the evolutionist rebuttals, where the creationist claims are revealed to be hokey, ultra-selective, out-of-date, misquotings of scientific statements. That these people wrap themselves in credentials from diploma mills. That they clearly don't understand the basics of what evolutionists *actually* claim.
Also, these facts set *limits* on the kind of God that is consistent with observed reality. In particular, they show that "Scripture" is "free of error" only in the most apologetic sense. God may have created the universe, but for about the past several billion years, the physical universe seems to have evolved pretty much according to uniform physical laws. And not at all like the Genesis description, except in the most poetic of senses.
But even personal observations are, on some level, simply ways your cerebrum is making sense of nerve impulses. All sorts of bizarre stuff happens in dreams; rational people accept that their brain is not responding to reality at that time; less rational people will claim these dreams are messages from God, or premonitions, or whatever.
Once we let individuals declare their "direct" observations factual, we are back in the soup; the fundamentalists all can claim "direct" observation that they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or whatever, and we can't gainsay it. [That is, primarily, the reason these people often won't yield to evidence; they seem to be clinging for psychological reasons to a self-justifying edifice of belief; perhaps, one must say ultra-skeptically, scientists are as well.]
I have a friend who converted from Judaism (after making clear when he got married to a Christian that his Judaism was personally important) because he claimed to have had a vision of some kind. I think it is stupid, but I can't particularly say it is not factual.
The percent certainty, of course, is arbitrary. But I think, similar to the notion of economic utility, we can imagine a monotonic arrangement by each person of statements from less to more certain. That ranking would, of course, be often psychological, but we could largely base it on probabilities: how many other statements would have to be simultaneously false, and how certain are those.
Ultimately, I have to base my judgements on evolutionary theory on the prevalence of those views among serious academics, as well as the "persuasiveness" of somewhat-popularized accounts and rebuttals, as well as the non-"persuasiveness" of the creationist tactics: continuously quoting old, out-of-date, extremely selectively, out-of-context scientific statements, and particularly the way they accept observations of nature when they can handwavily claim "irreducible complexity" but studiously avoid all the observations that scream unavoidably "totally un-designed Rube Goldberg evolution." Whereas true scientists are always probing and looking for *fresh* observations, instead of rehashing the same material OVER and OVER.
No one can go into the field and repeat lifetimes worth of study to directly "prove" evolution to his own sastisfaction, except as a kind of thought experiment.
Stephen Jay Gould (spell his name right) wrote multiple books, including his magnum opus, supporting evolution. Your arbitrary definition of "intermediate forms" is yet another classic strawman.
Not surprisingly, I don't understand your position at all.
My belief in evolution by natural selection is a scientific one. Evolution does not have moral force. It is not "moral" or "immoral," simply "true."
I am opposed, on moral grounds, to any kind of crude "survival of the fittest" as a rule for society. As a matter of fact, I work with a couple former Marines everyday who could pretty easily smash my head in, so I am opposed for reasons of personal bias as well. Luckily, as a society we have agreed that, if they were to do so (except in self-defense), the cops would arrest them, and the state would try them, although I would not be alive to appreciate it. So I can be reasonably comfortable that I don't have to survive everyday by my fists alone.
Just because I believe in gravity doesn't mean I have to allow myself to fall off a cliff.
What it does deny is that we derive our morality from some all-powerful God who created us "molded from dust" style in the relatively recent past.
I believe in the truth of evolution, and also believe we should strive to act morally. But I also believe those morals are constructed by societies, ideally on a rationally agreed basis.
We can agree as a society not to kill each other, and when we make an exception for warfare, we can still make agreements such as the Geneva conventions, because we believe it is noble to do so. Or, like the Quakers, we can choose to be conscientious objectors and make no exception for warfare.
God doesn't need to come down from Heaven and say "These Geneva conventions are my will", humans can agree all on their own.
The ostrich has complete, non-functional wings, because it is DESCENDED FROM flighted birds that had complete, functional wings, but EVOLVED to be large enough that the wings were no longer useful for flight, and therefore BECAME non-functional.
That is, admittedly, a theory, but what is your alternative?
Everyone can see the ostrich has wings, and are clearly birds, but can't fly. Evolution explains this sensibly. ID does not offer any explanation at all, except "God had a weird sense of humor or inscrutable plan". Yet, because we don't have crystal clear evidence preserved from events which happened tens of millions of years ago, we are supposed to "worry" that evolution can't explain birds' wings.
Specific documents and photographs are "facts" of only a very limited extent: at this time and place, I hold this in my hand, and it appears to have certain markings. Behind any interpretation of those observations is an assumption, such as that it hasn't been doctored or forged, that the photographer was at some place at some time, that the camera was in working order, that the writer was a particular person, writing from recent recollection, etc., etc.
Only by enough concordance between observations (inductive reasoning) can we assemble beliefs with some degree of certainty, and at some threshold, begin to take them as proven "facts." Hume showed that all inductive reasoning is intrinsically unproven, but *practically*, we take many things at face value, because we believe, for psychological reasons, that reality is not some kind of cruel, arbitrary hoax.
Gullible types delight in taking Polaroid pictures, pointing the camera at the sun, and seeing mystical images or writing, when "in fact" what is happening is light leakage reflecting off the printed film package, or other parts of the camera, leaving a distorted image. This kind of thing hardly "proves" the Virgin Mary appears in the light, although it is appealing to these people precisely because they have the naive notion that a photograph is an intrinsically reliable piece of evidence.
But NOTHING is known "with [absolute] certainty" Only "beyond all reasonable doubt" or "by the preponderance of evidence" or "in all recorded experience" or "is undisputed."
My point is that certainty is never 100%. But George Washington is at, say 99.9999%, and evolution in general 99.9999%, with specific details being at the 90% or less "certainty."
The reason we can dismiss the creationists with only brief consideration is that they are attacking the 99.99% certain stuff, with silly arguments, instead of the 60% certain stuff with interesting arguments.
We're not scared of anything. Opponents of evolution have not been able to put up anything near solid evidence in favor of their views.
What evolutionists ARE is ANGRY that they have to waste their time with the mental equivalent of flat-earthers. If scientists had to put up with as many people wanting equal time for a flat earth, you would see just as vehement a reaction: we have known the earth is round for thousands of years, and there can be basically no doubt.
ID and other creationism is total bullshit backed by religious bias dressed up as science. That's an insult to all of us who are actually DOING science, and pisses us off. That any idiot can come off the street and claim evolution is "non-scientific" and be believed is simply unbelievably stupid.
I am biased against stupidity, especially when it is willful.
Your use of the term "fully-developed species" is completely arbitrary, if not nonsensical. It presupposes a standard of development.
Your interpretation of the cambrian fauna and flora is also misleading. There are more *groups* represented than currently exist, but not more species. There aren't any insects there, for instance, while there are plenty of insects species today. Even flowering plants and vertebrates don't exist in the Cambrian strata.
Also, your description of the pre-cambrian fossil record is out-of-date.
Where does this 5 feet in diameter crap come about? A single report, based on poor methodology, and contradicted by subsequent measurements and analysis.
Plus, you've made a mindless extrapolation of one measurement to the arbitrary past.
So let's see: one scientist measures a contraction of the sun, and immediately, that is incontrovertible. Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of nuclear physicists work with radioisotopes using the same basic physics to understand stellar fusion, but that is all doubtful.
Here's a tip: learn science from scientists, not from axe-grinding creationists.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution has evidence on its side. ID has handwaving, stale, recycled bullshit on its side. Oh, and religion.
Which am I supposed to believe?
You completely misunderstand the theory of evolution.
The most important error you make is in believing "said systems decay in short spans." There is no support for your belief.
Also, your concept of "transition species" is totally bogus. EVERY SPECIES is equally "transitional". You only have "transitions" when you draw artificial boxes around groups and say "these are reptiles, these are birds, and I am looking for other species to fall exactly on the line I drew."
And the "leap of logic" of believing God is the ABANDONMENT OF LOGIC.
Believe what you want to believe, but every one of these indicates even further you are incapable of logical thought.
The reason we object to ID is because it has the effect of watering down the biology curriculum so that the most central result, evolution by natural selection, is drowned out in a mish-mash of bad philosophy. Of course, all this political crap has already made evolution so "controversial" that it hardly gets taught at all. But that is still too much for these pea-brained creationists.
That is, everyone is made stupider to please the ignorant. That, I believe, is BAD.
As for religion and new inventions, take a look at how on "religious" grounds, fundies are trying to block research on stem cells. *And* destroy education in biology by creating controversy over evolution where SCIENTIFICALLY, there IS NONE. Not because evolutionists are stupid or close-minded, but because the EVOLUTIONISTS ARE RIGHT.
So all you flat-earth creationists should just shut up and let the biologists do biology. Then, when you want fertility treatments so that God can give you all the dozens of children he "wants" you to have, and all the medical advances that keep you alive and healthy, you can thank all the secular medical research that makes it possible.
If you think letting religion run society is a good thing, consider comparing the Middle East to Europe.
. pdf
Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.
Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.
While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1
of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.
Yeah, I'd say that secularism is a good thing.
It explains a lot, but is totally incompatible with tons of existing observations about geology, as well as basic physics.
Therefore, it is unscientific hokum.
If I were in search of intelligent conversation, this is the last forum I would visit, and you are one of the last posters I would look for.
Just to be even CLEARER:
when I talked about seeing lots of evidence, I INCLUDED having seen the weak shit the ICR puts up on its web site.
I've seen it already because idiots repeatedly link to it from their shitty posts. The information at ICR is crap.
And, just to be as clear as possible
You will not convince me of the truth of your views because it is clear you are a blithering idiot with only the most limited ability for logical deduction and argument.
This is NOT equivalent to some sort of religious attachment to evolution. It is evidence of my bias against especially stupid people.
Which is why my Slashdot id is "sickofthisshit"
"shit" = "arguments like settsu's"
Yeah, I can summarize it for you
"Institute for Creation Research = icr.org" = "Not a credible source for scientific information."
The fact that you persist in making leaps of illogic based on my very clear statements means that you aren't particularly careful about logical arguments.
Newest english-asskissing craze: Writing "Bismut" in german, because it looks so english and thus so scientific.
:-)
Hit a nerve?
In my view, even theories can never be "proven false." They can only be made sufficiently implausible that people stop using or talking or thinking about them. The point is, that we *pose* and *accept* scientific theories as valid because they *suggest* experimental falsification. Not because, in practice, they *are* falsifiable.
Young earth creationism was still interesting for some time after Darwin published Origin of Species. Later developments made using Noah's Flood to explain things seem pretty silly to scientists. That some vocal nutcases haven't caught on more than a century later is what makes this all so frustrating.
Historically, the Popperian ideal does not match scientific inquiry very well. Thomas Kuhn's whole point is that reasonably "plausible" and even "proven" theories get abandoned before newer theories have accumulated enough observational evidence.
Look at Einstein's work: most of it had very little experimental support. He might not even have heard of Michelson's null result at the time of special relativity, and his quantum explanation of the specific heat of solids had *one* experimental measurement behind it. But his explanations were so compelling, they were accepted far more quickly than was justified by hard-eyed "observation."
As scientists, we obviously like to think we are playing by some hard rules like Popper suggests. In practice, I think we have to admit these rules depend a lot on calling our own fouls and on some imperfect referee blowing his whistle from time to time.
Just to clarify the gravity example, which I thought was *completely* obvious, but apparently isn't to you,
The argument you made:
I believe in evolution -> society should only allow evolutionary mechanism to operate, without moral considerations.
The analogy I made
I believe gravity makes things fall to the earth -> I should allow the mechanism of gravity to completely determine my actions at the top of a cliff.
Which is obviously false, and I believe your argument was false in pretty much the same way.
What the hell is so confusing to you?
Evolution is not "the way to go" in any sort of ethical sense. I also haven't said God is non-existent; what I mean is that from the evidence and explanations I have seen, in rather great detail, the explanation of modern-day biology by evolutionary theory, and the explanation of the stars in the sky and the rocks on the Earth by a mechanistic, gigayear chronology, is far more *convincing* than the evidence and explanations offered by its opponents.
I read *lots* of the creationist websites; I also read the evolutionist rebuttals, where the creationist claims are revealed to be hokey, ultra-selective, out-of-date, misquotings of scientific statements. That these people wrap themselves in credentials from diploma mills. That they clearly don't understand the basics of what evolutionists *actually* claim.
Also, these facts set *limits* on the kind of God that is consistent with observed reality. In particular, they show that "Scripture" is "free of error" only in the most apologetic sense. God may have created the universe, but for about the past several billion years, the physical universe seems to have evolved pretty much according to uniform physical laws. And not at all like the Genesis description, except in the most poetic of senses.
But even personal observations are, on some level, simply ways your cerebrum is making sense of nerve impulses. All sorts of bizarre stuff happens in dreams; rational people accept that their brain is not responding to reality at that time; less rational people will claim these dreams are messages from God, or premonitions, or whatever.
Once we let individuals declare their "direct" observations factual, we are back in the soup; the fundamentalists all can claim "direct" observation that they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or whatever, and we can't gainsay it. [That is, primarily, the reason these people often won't yield to evidence; they seem to be clinging for psychological reasons to a self-justifying edifice of belief; perhaps, one must say ultra-skeptically, scientists are as well.]
I have a friend who converted from Judaism (after making clear when he got married to a Christian that his Judaism was personally important) because he claimed to have had a vision of some kind. I think it is stupid, but I can't particularly say it is not factual.
The percent certainty, of course, is arbitrary. But I think, similar to the notion of economic utility, we can imagine a monotonic arrangement by each person of statements from less to more certain. That ranking would, of course, be often psychological, but we could largely base it on probabilities: how many other statements would have to be simultaneously false, and how certain are those.
Ultimately, I have to base my judgements on evolutionary theory on the prevalence of those views among serious academics, as well as the "persuasiveness" of somewhat-popularized accounts and rebuttals, as well as the non-"persuasiveness" of the creationist tactics: continuously quoting old, out-of-date, extremely selectively, out-of-context scientific statements, and particularly the way they accept observations of nature when they can handwavily claim "irreducible complexity" but studiously avoid all the observations that scream unavoidably "totally un-designed Rube Goldberg evolution." Whereas true scientists are always probing and looking for *fresh* observations, instead of rehashing the same material OVER and OVER.
No one can go into the field and repeat lifetimes worth of study to directly "prove" evolution to his own sastisfaction, except as a kind of thought experiment.
I did not use the words "Obvious Fact"
Jimbro2k did, you stupid fuck.
Stephen Jay Gould (spell his name right) wrote multiple books, including his magnum opus, supporting evolution. Your arbitrary definition of "intermediate forms" is yet another classic strawman.
Not surprisingly, I don't understand your position at all.
My belief in evolution by natural selection is a scientific one. Evolution does not have moral force. It is not "moral" or "immoral," simply "true."
I am opposed, on moral grounds, to any kind of crude "survival of the fittest" as a rule for society. As a matter of fact, I work with a couple former Marines everyday who could pretty easily smash my head in, so I am opposed for reasons of personal bias as well. Luckily, as a society we have agreed that, if they were to do so (except in self-defense), the cops would arrest them, and the state would try them, although I would not be alive to appreciate it. So I can be reasonably comfortable that I don't have to survive everyday by my fists alone.
Just because I believe in gravity doesn't mean I have to allow myself to fall off a cliff.
Evolution does not deny morality.
What it does deny is that we derive our morality from some all-powerful God who created us "molded from dust" style in the relatively recent past.
I believe in the truth of evolution, and also believe we should strive to act morally. But I also believe those morals are constructed by societies, ideally on a rationally agreed basis.
We can agree as a society not to kill each other, and when we make an exception for warfare, we can still make agreements such as the Geneva conventions, because we believe it is noble to do so. Or, like the Quakers, we can choose to be conscientious objectors and make no exception for warfare.
God doesn't need to come down from Heaven and say "These Geneva conventions are my will", humans can agree all on their own.
The ostrich has complete, non-functional wings, because it is DESCENDED FROM flighted birds that had complete, functional wings, but EVOLVED to be large enough that the wings were no longer useful for flight, and therefore BECAME non-functional.
That is, admittedly, a theory, but what is your alternative?
Everyone can see the ostrich has wings, and are clearly birds, but can't fly. Evolution explains this sensibly. ID does not offer any explanation at all, except "God had a weird sense of humor or inscrutable plan". Yet, because we don't have crystal clear evidence preserved from events which happened tens of millions of years ago, we are supposed to "worry" that evolution can't explain birds' wings.
Pardon me if I don't share your concern.
Just to respond to an additional point:
Specific documents and photographs are "facts" of only a very limited extent: at this time and place, I hold this in my hand, and it appears to have certain markings. Behind any interpretation of those observations is an assumption, such as that it hasn't been doctored or forged, that the photographer was at some place at some time, that the camera was in working order, that the writer was a particular person, writing from recent recollection, etc., etc.
Only by enough concordance between observations (inductive reasoning) can we assemble beliefs with some degree of certainty, and at some threshold, begin to take them as proven "facts." Hume showed that all inductive reasoning is intrinsically unproven, but *practically*, we take many things at face value, because we believe, for psychological reasons, that reality is not some kind of cruel, arbitrary hoax.
Gullible types delight in taking Polaroid pictures, pointing the camera at the sun, and seeing mystical images or writing, when "in fact" what is happening is light leakage reflecting off the printed film package, or other parts of the camera, leaving a distorted image. This kind of thing hardly "proves" the Virgin Mary appears in the light, although it is appealing to these people precisely because they have the naive notion that a photograph is an intrinsically reliable piece of evidence.
See, for instance, http://ourladyoftheroses.org/Photographs.htm
.
I was simply responding to your defintion
"fact" = "known with certainty to be true."
But NOTHING is known "with [absolute] certainty" Only "beyond all reasonable doubt" or "by the preponderance of evidence" or "in all recorded experience" or "is undisputed."
My point is that certainty is never 100%. But George Washington is at, say 99.9999%, and evolution in general 99.9999%, with specific details being at the 90% or less "certainty."
The reason we can dismiss the creationists with only brief consideration is that they are attacking the 99.99% certain stuff, with silly arguments, instead of the 60% certain stuff with interesting arguments.
Your use of the term "rock" is extremely vague, and ignores the fact that plenty of inorganic chemistry is not silicate.
We're not scared of anything. Opponents of evolution have not been able to put up anything near solid evidence in favor of their views.
What evolutionists ARE is ANGRY that they have to waste their time with the mental equivalent of flat-earthers. If scientists had to put up with as many people wanting equal time for a flat earth, you would see just as vehement a reaction: we have known the earth is round for thousands of years, and there can be basically no doubt.
ID and other creationism is total bullshit backed by religious bias dressed up as science. That's an insult to all of us who are actually DOING science, and pisses us off. That any idiot can come off the street and claim evolution is "non-scientific" and be believed is simply unbelievably stupid.
I am biased against stupidity, especially when it is willful.
Your use of the term "fully-developed species" is completely arbitrary, if not nonsensical. It presupposes a standard of development.
Your interpretation of the cambrian fauna and flora is also misleading. There are more *groups* represented than currently exist, but not more species. There aren't any insects there, for instance, while there are plenty of insects species today. Even flowering plants and vertebrates don't exist in the Cambrian strata.
Also, your description of the pre-cambrian fossil record is out-of-date.
Where does this 5 feet in diameter crap come about? A single report, based on poor methodology, and contradicted by subsequent measurements and analysis.
Plus, you've made a mindless extrapolation of one measurement to the arbitrary past.
So let's see: one scientist measures a contraction of the sun, and immediately, that is incontrovertible. Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of nuclear physicists work with radioisotopes using the same basic physics to understand stellar fusion, but that is all doubtful.
Here's a tip: learn science from scientists, not from axe-grinding creationists.