A young sun - a response

quote:

---

Well in that case it looks nothing like the Sun of today. It doesn't collapse overnight. So this has no bearing on your question it seems.

---

You're avoiding my question, Eta, which can be summarized as:Which sun would APPEAR older in the early stage of it origin, the natural sun of gaseous nebula of spiraling dust/gas or the day four instant created hot sun of Genesis one, capable of sustaining life on earth?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-29-2003]

May I try to figure out what the heck you are getting at, Buz?You seem to think that the sun has to appear old to supply the light given in Genesis. Is that right?Obviously, a sun created in day 4 but already supplying light and heat would have to appear to be older than a sun some 4 days or even many years after it had started to condense out of intersteller nebulae. Is that what you want?But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, it doesn't have to appear old in all ways that it does. Do you get that part?Since it does appear old in all ways, even those it doesn't have to, you have to explain why that is.(btw, eta is not evading your question, it is clear he doesn't get what you are after. I'm not sure I do for that matter, but I'm trying).[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

......still anxiously awaiting Eta's forthright answer, before getting off on a tangent. Be patient, Ned; I'll get back to you.

Do you get what he is asking, Eta?Let's say we have a pair of sun-like stars one is forming form the nebulae and has been doing this for "a few days" the other has only just gotten to the point where it is producing light and heat at a level that is approximately good enough for life on earth.If you examined these which would appear older?At first glance I think one might think that the one that has "lite up" is the older? But is that true?Remember, this sun is the created one, just for the purpose, it has nothing about it that isn't needed to make it work. I assume that means it has no helium at all. Isn't the only reason for helium the big bang (until the sun has made some of it's own).If it did, for what ever reason I can't guess, have helium in it then it would also have 'primordial' lithium etc would it not?However, maybe that isn't what Buz is getting at. It is such an obviously stupid question. How about this; the "natural" sun has also reached the same point, it has gone through it's gravitational collapse, started to fuse and heat has reached it's surface. So they are both "up and running".The 'created' one is either identical to the 'natural' one at this point or it isn't. Does it *have* to be to work? I think you've already answered that but I'm trying to get this clear. Buz is being a bit stubborn about clarifying what he does mean.One suspects that he thinks he's laying a trap. I think he is, in fact, painting himself into a corner. We'll see as things unfold I guess.

Ok, I'm sorry but I don't think you know what you are asking. You have now, without a doubt, moved the goalposts at least twice.A sun in an early stage of origin doesn't even look like a star.So how can I compare that to a divinely created object that looks like what you see in the sky today.I am starting to think you really don't understand your own question.

quote:

---

A sun in an early stage of origin doesn't even look like a star.

---

........but it is the early formation/birth of a sun. It's a sun/star in it's infancy. It looks young.

quote:

---

So how can I compare that to a divinely created object that looks like what you see in the sky today.

---

Very easily. If you and Ned would be forthright and honest with me instead of trying to make me look stupid, you'd admit the young nebula natural sun in the making looks younger than the instantly created completely formed sun which looks old. but is not old, now, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

I am starting to think you really don't understand your own question.

---

I fully understand my question and methinks you and Ned do to, but you both refuse to admit our sun would be created with the appearance of age if it were created on day four of Genesis. It's really a no brainer. I'm rather ashamed of you who are supposed to be so espert on these things as to how hard it appears for you to grasp some rather simple concepts and that I must go to such length to explain them to you.

buzsawAm I correct in assuming that,since a star that has just begun its lifetime and is not yet emitting light,that this somehow "proves" our star is young because it is obviously today giving off light?I do hope I am misunderstanding this.

Buz, I for one have already "admitted" that it would have to be created with some of the appearances of age! I did so very early on. I don't think anyone has disputed that either.What you can't seem to see is that the sun has some appearances of age that it does not have to have.We are waiting patiently for you to explain those. (well, sort of patiently)

I honestly tried to understand what you were asking.Now I am seeing that you truly are clueless and your asking has become a childish rant filled with gibberish.Believe me you are needing no help whatsoever on appearing stupid. I must commend you on the slam dunk job you are doing all by your lonesome.In fact I tried to explain to you some basic stellar physics but I see now that you cannot even formulate a meaningful question.In other words - bugger off!!!!!!!!!!!psYou have completely moved the goalposts by deliberation or complete ineptitude. I vote for the latter.But once more for the road:If the Sun was created a few thousand years ago then it must have been created with a false appearance of age because it didn't have to be so created with a fake age.So to me it is much more likely it appears old because it is old.Why are you mentioning a condensing protostar/nebula?
That is an object that looks totally different from the star we see.Once more - just for the hell of it.The sun appears old. If it was divinely created a few thousand years ago then God faked it's age because it could achieve the job without appearing old. This could easliy be measured.ppsSeemingly you couldn't explain your way out of a paper bag because you obviously know very little about stars and you have struggled to form meaningful questions. I honestly tried to help and understand where you were coming from but you now accuse me of messing you around. So bugger off.

I don't think ICR's staff are out to deceive anyone into believing their cosmology. They retracted their initial position on the Paluxy tracks that resembled human footprints, and no doubt will get around to acknowledging the findings that have rendered that one particular argument against an ancient sun obsolete as well. Though I respect ICR, I actually prefer a competing creation science organization, Answers in Genesis, who have published on their website articles that concede the neutrino argument to those who proposed that our sun is powered primarily by fusion; read the editor's note at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1187.asp, then read http://www.answersingenesis.org/...faq/dont_use.asp#neutrino for elaboration. Volume 16, issue 3, of AIG's Technical Journal will eventually post online Robert Newton's paper, "'Missing’ neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator," as well.
I just joined this forum, so if anyone else in this vast messageboard reservoir has already mentioned AIG's relevant articles, then I apologize for the redundancy.

DRI must say I am impressed by the level of work done in AIG,however I find constant backpedaling of aplogetics dishonest. there is one point in the book of joshua that I wish to dispute since they snuck out from under it,I believe,because it is a difficult question. I also found some erroneous work on the physics side of their arguements.Unfortunately they operate only through snail mail so it will be a long time before any issue acould be sorted out.Damn shame becuase I have asked this same question here on the forum and not recieved any response.
From AIG. What a line of B.S. since for one it would hardly equate to a miracle or even something special.Why mention it if it has no bearing on the context of the story.It is my opinion that they refused to tackle it since it is not mentioned by any other nation of people anywhere in the world of that time.Also missing is an explanation of the physical effect of the earth moving backwards in order to accomodate this phenomena without the destruction that would ensue.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-30-2003]

Buz original statement:
The sun, in order to do what it needed to do for God's living creation on earth must needs have been created with appearance of age it would seem. 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? After all, Adam came on the scene with appearance of age and he lived hundreds of years after that before he died.Buz statement:
Eta please answer my question. Wouldn't the sun have to show age in order to do what it needs to do for the earth to function?
Ned please answer my question. Wouldn't the sun have to show age in order to do what it needs to do for the earth to function?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eta Ansuwer:
I don't understand your question.
What do you mean by 'have to show age'?
That makes no sense to me - please elaborate.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buz:
That if it was created on day four of Genesis 1 as the Bible states, it would have had to be created with the appearance of age. See my post above to that effect which you previously responded to for details.Ned:
No, Buz I don't think it "has to show" age.Eta: In other words to say it is 7000 years old you have to say it was created with an appearance of age. A terrible philosophy, not only for science but for religion too.Ned Message 80: With my limited understanding the answer is NO. (It ouldn't have to look old.)Ned Message 91: But since the sun can work fine WITHOUT the appearance of age why would He make it look like it is old?Ned Message 116: Buz, you have managed to miss the point that the sun does NOT have to look old to work.Ned Message 122: That leaves us with the choice to be made. What is going on? Sun old, God fibber, sun old, God fibber, which one is it? NOTE NOW HOW NED SWITCHES POSITIONS:

​

Ned Message 124: Buz, if I understand our resident astrophyscist correctly (Eta) then you are wrong. The sun could be made to work with some but *not* all aspects of age.

​

Buz Message 125: So from one fork of your tongue you're saying I'm wrong in insisting that there would have to be some appearance of age. Then outa the other fork you're saying it would show some age. Which fork of your tongue should I believe, Ned, me friend????

​

BUT ETA CORRECTS AND HOLDS ON
Eta Message 127:

​

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Sun does not have to appear old to support life on Earth.

​

It looks old because it is old.

​

Buz then commences to show how our sun in it's early stages would look so young that it wouldn't even be able to light itself, let alone the earth. So consequently, our sun would have to be all intact and in place all fired up to sustain life on earth, and the scientist on earth would look at it and say "it must be old" when in fact that's the way God created it that is assuming he did create it

​

Eta and Ned then commence to belittle buz and make out like buz's all confused, when in fact Ned and Eta are simply unwilling to admit that
they've been ideologically bested by old ignorant buz in this debate.

​

Eta:

quote:

---

I honestly tried to understand what you were asking.
Now I am seeing that you truly are clueless and your asking has become a childish rant filled with gibberish.

​

Believe me you are needing no help whatsoever on appearing stupid. I must commend you on the slam dunk job you are doing all by your lonesome.

---

​

quote:

---

In fact I tried to explain to you some basic stellar physics but I see now that you cannot even formulate a meaningful question.

---

​

Eta, I wasn't needing or asking for a physics lecture. All I wanted was honest, forthright answers to a couple of simple, easy to answer questions which, rather than answer honestly and forthrightly, you chose to attemp to obscure by your own evasive yada.

​

quote:

---

In other words - bugger off!!!!!!!!!!!

---

​

SORE LOOSER!

​

------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

​

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

BuzShort reminder to please respond to my post 142.thanks.

[qs] This is my first post on the appearance of age question. The one you didn't quote in full and didn't number. In that very first post I noted the issue of element abundances. I hadn't at the time, thought of the time needed for energy to reach the surface.I have not changed on the issue of element abundances. You have ignored that point all along. It is NOT necessary for the sun to show ALL aspects of age to work. The time taken for the sun to get energy to the surface is vastly less than the time taken for other aspects to show. Thus the sun shows an age MUCH larger than it has to which is the basic point.As soon as the energy flow time was noted I accepted that. But you have yet to explain why the other aspects fit into your ideas.In fact, unless I missed something, you have ignored those completely. It is as if no one mentioned them to you though they have appeared in many posts.Even if that is a "switch of postions" you still have not touched the problem of the unnecessary attributes and an appearance of an age much, much greater than necessary. God only had to make the sun appear to be 30,000 years old but has made it appear much older.

quote:

---

In that very first post I noted the issue of element abundances. I hadn't at the time, thought of the time needed for energy to reach the surface.

---

But what about the time in the early makings of our sun when it was a gaseous nebula and what about the time it took it to reach exactly the perfect temperature and conditions as well as location, etc to sustain life on earth? What about all this? It all takes time, doesn't it? Our sun, if created on day four intact has this all accomplished. Scientists on earth would look at it an calculate it to be aged when in fact it is not. You an Eta are falaciously denying that fact. It just like if Adam were to be shown to a doctor as he appeard on day six of his creation, the doc would say he was an adult with age. Same principle. God wasn't tryin to fool anybody with the sun or with Adam. HE DID NOT MAKE THEM TO APPEAR TO MAN AS INFANTS. That's been my point all along and you people have fiddled away five pages of bandwith and all this time tiptoing through the tulips to deny the facts of my point.