A young sun - a response

Cora, I answered you question in one of the posts way back. I said the Holy Spirit was there doing the creating and likely the light came from his radiance, just the right amount to do what he wanted to do in the timeframe he wanted it to be done. I'll not get off topic with fossils, etc. My hands are full here without that. OK bud?

I guess we still have crossed wires.Let me state something here:If God made it in one day then IT WOULD NOT APPEAR AS IT DOES.Hence the comments of deception - i.e. making a false age appearance

Eta, it appears you're fudging again. Suggestion: Please copy and paste my specific statements/questions and respond to these specifics and things won't get muddled. Here's what I need responses to:
1. Where did I say it would appear billions of years old?

​

2. Somewhat aged, Eta?? It would evidenly appear to be millions of years old, according to the physicists I've read who claim it would take millions to form any star.

​

quote: Eta:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could still tell the difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buz question:

​

Oh?? So how/what??

How the heck am I fudging. Why would I waste my time to do such a thing?1) I never said that you made a billions of years statement. I make the statement it appears that old.I thought you were arguing that 'it appears billions' but really isn't.2) Yes it would after the accepted star formation process appear to be several million years old (depending where you define what the state 'after the process' is.)My whole point can be encapsulated as:If you magically 'make a Sun appear' say 7000 years ago (and it looks like it does today) then I can tell the difference between that Sun and the one we observe UNLESS in that divine creation a FALSE appearance of age was built in.Whats more, if you magically made a new star versus letting one develope as per star formation theory I can also differentiate between those UNLESS AGAIN the false appearance of age was divinely placed therein.Is that clear enough for you to see where I am coming from?

quote:

---

If you magically 'make a Sun appear' say 7000 years ago (and it looks like it does today) then I can tell the difference between that Sun and the one we observe UNLESS in that divine creation a FALSE appearance of age was built in.

​

Whats more, if you magically made a new star versus letting one develope as per star formation theory I can also differentiate between those UNLESS AGAIN the false appearance of age was divinely placed therein.

​

Is that clear enough for you to see where I am coming from?

---

Yes. You are finally corroborating my original statement 6 pages back which was as follows. If you don't think so, please state specifically why not:Buz original statement:

quote:

---

Scientifically speaking, the sun, when created on day four of Genesis would appear to a scientist if he were observing at that time as having age, would it not?

---

[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-30-2003]

Ok.But my problem with such a divine creation is that it creates a fake history so to speak.Because a divinely created star need not have been created with such a fake history.Many people take umbrage with this as it basically makes God a deceiver or a trickster.In other words - WHY WOULD GOD DO THIS?Isn't it more likely the Sun truly is approx. 4.6 billion years old, whether divinely created or not.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-01-2003]

Ok, I think there is general agreement on this.But, Buz, so what?You already agree that the universe isn't young. So that doesn't matter to you.The age that would "appear" would be much less than the age we actualy see (unless there was some trickery going on). So it doesn't help show that the ages we have are only "apparent".I don't understand why you've gone on so long on this issue. Can you explain?

OK, Buz, I was not aware of your position regarding endless creations and recreations of the universe. But if God has been doing that for an endless past, he must be repeating himself for the umpteenth time by now. OK. Ok. So that is off topic, and another issue!I was trying to make the point that just as God is obliged to make the Earth with orbital momentum, as if it had just come from somewhere, so all the processes of the universe must be created as on-going, AS IF they had a past history.How much APPARENT past history is required to make the universe seem consistent seems to be the issue of your young sun discussion.Whether the APPARENT past history NEEDS to be consistent is another matter, but this consistency is a central requirement of scientific theories. Hence the concern when the apparent ages of stars in globular clusters seemed to be greater that the age of the universe calculated from the Hubble constant. And hence the satisfaction when geological dating, astronomy, cosmology, evolution, etc all give consistent dates. (OK, I am sure you have many arguments here!).Mike.

The above was a reply to your comments about my comments. I realize the topic has progressed a bit further, and don't want to drag it back to ground already well trodden, so please ignore it if you wish - I won't be offended. - Mike.

Sidelined, Answers in Genesis does not "operate only through snail mail"; you can access their online feedback form at http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/feedback.asp and review their posted feedback archives at http://www.answersingenesis.org/...Area/feedback/archive.asp.
You posted only one of the three possible explanations that chemist Russel Grigg outlined at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/243.asp. Regardless of whether the other two answers satisfied you, it is your right to find the miracle of Joshua's long day less than impressive if it involved prolonged localized light refraction. That doesn't mean that the effect had no bearing on the context of the event, however. The possible means through which God enacted that miracle is what you obviously find less than spectacular, though Griggs in that excerpt does answer your question regarding why no other representative of any nation on Earth mentioned it. It seems plausible to me. Author Larry Richards, who I believe is an old-Earth creationist, notes in his book, "Every Miracle and Wonder in the Bible," that what he finds truly noteworthy about that incident is that God, rather than informing humans that a miracle will take place (his standard protocol), actually "heeded the voice of man" by providing the miracle for which Joshua asked. Another point of Mr. Richards' that's of relevance to your assessment of Griggs' first answer bears notice: "We're sometimes told that God has gone out of the miracle business. Certainly the kind of miracles that God performed in the Exodus age have not been repeated. But there are private as well as public miracles." Regardless of the mechanism God used, "the prolongation of daylight was a miracle."
By the way, astronomer Danny Faulkner has a 1998 article published on ICR's website (Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research) that grants, despite any lingering "theoretical and observational questions," that fusion powers our sun as well as "most stars." This was two years after Keith Davies' paper which Rei criticized when he started this thread. This seems to me akin to highlighting, say, an older paper in ICR's archives that exhibited exuberance over possible evidence on the Paluxy riverbed of dinosaur and human coexistence and representing that as ICR's current position despite ICR's retraction of such more recently.

quote:

---

Ok.
But my problem with such a divine creation is that it creates a fake history so to speak.

​

Because a divinely created star need not have been created with such a fake history.

​

Many people take umbrage with this as it basically makes God a deceiver or a trickster.

​

In other words - WHY WOULD GOD DO THIS?

---

Imo, this's as silly a notion as to say God created a fake Adam or a fake dinosaur or a fake diamond when he created all these with appearance of age in the creation. The sun looks old because it's already in place and radiating heat to earth and the planets. No matter what a complete burning sun looks like, it's gotta look old to science simply because it's mature and not a sun in infancy. It suprises me big time that an intelligent one like you can't grasp this ever so simple concept. But no, I guess that shouldn't surprise me since your sole agenda seems to be to badmouth the Jew/Christian god, Jehovah and to give narry an ideological inch to the possibility of creationism.

quote:

---

Isn't it more likely the Sun truly is approx. 4.6 billion years old, whether divinely created or not.

---

Well, yah, I guess if I were an evo big banger, I might agree. By millions I was going by how you all figure it takes for a sun/star to be fully formed and radiating. How you think a Biblical creationist can date it billions old is real illogical, in view of Gen one, isn't it??[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-01-2003]

Buz, you seem to have a grasping problem yourself. The issue is NOT that the sun appears older than 6,000 years. The issue is that the sun appears older than it HAS to. You have ignored that more than half a dozen times I'm athinking.

quote:

---

OK, Buz, I was not aware of your position regarding endless creations and recreations of the universe. But if God has been doing that for an endless past, he must be repeating himself for the umpteenth time by now. OK. Ok. So that is off topic, and another issue!
I was trying to make the point that just as God is obliged to make the Earth with orbital momentum, as if it had just come from somewhere, so all the processes of the universe must be created as on-going, AS IF they had a past history.

​

How much APPARENT past history is required to make the universe seem consistent seems to be the issue of your young sun discussion.

​

Whether the APPARENT past history NEEDS to be consistent is another matter, but this consistency is a central requirement of scientific theories. Hence the concern when the apparent ages of stars in globular clusters seemed to be greater that the age of the universe calculated from the Hubble constant. And hence the satisfaction when geological dating, astronomy, cosmology, evolution, etc all give consistent dates. (OK, I am sure you have many arguments here!).

---

Mike, you raise some interesting points here. In Genesis one, on day four the sun wasn't the only thing created on that day. It says he also created the moon and the stars on that same day. My take on that is that likely these stars were either the planets of the solar system, or even the whole Milky Way galexy. At any rate, the literal reading of Genesis one has the earth here and growing plants before these other bodies were created. Like I said before, the only way this would be possible is that the Holy Spirit, the spirit of the father who does the creating for God the father, provided the heat, light and whatever it took to grow the plants. I definitely don't have all the answers to how it was done, not being an eye witness, but we do have the givens and that's all we have to go by. Of course the evos weren't there millions and billions ago, so they don't have all the answers either as to what all went on in the universe.

quote:

---

Buz, you seem to have a grasping problem yourself. The issue is NOT that the sun appears older than 6,000 years. The issue is that the sun appears older than it HAS to. You have ignored that more than half a dozen times I'm athinking.

---

Well, Ned, again that's like saying Adam shoulda looked like a 4 year old or a teenager and that woulda been better in your opinion. God knew in advance that there would be the need to destroy the solar system and likely the whole galexy by fire, and create new heavens and a new earth so maybe he wanted the sun to be in such a cindition as to last only so long, I don't know, just conjecting based on some scriptures.See II Peter 3:10 - 18 where it says it'l all burn and melt the elements etc.

Your quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what a complete burning sun looks like, it's gotta look old to science simply because it's mature and not a sun in infancy
---------------------------------------------------------------------But my whole point is THAT IT DOESN'T have to look old to do it's job. That's the crux of the problem. Hence the age we measure was not needed so WHY?