A young sun - a response

Sidelined, I've made my position very clear. All you need do is read what I've posted to Ned and Eta for your answer.

If anyone looks at the history of this thread they shall see that I honestly tried to understand what you were asking.But it seems I may not have.I am an astrophysicist for a living. I am pretty well versed on stellar physics.But you seem not to be able to consistently ask the same question. I thought I understood.I'm sorry but your lack of knowledge in this area has led you to asking questions that are ill defined.I honestly tried to help but yoy then went to accusing me of muddying the waters. I did no such thing.I WILL ANSWER YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION (AND NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME)THE SUN TO FUNCTION AS IT DOES, DOES NOT NEED AN APPEARANCE OF GREAT AGE.IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOUR GOD CREATED IT 7000 YEARS AGO HE NEEDLESSLY AS PART OF THAT CREATION ADDED AN AGING.DOES THAT ANSWER YOU?Forget all the talk about protostars from a nebula, that seemed to have just confused you.But you pissed me off when you implied I was trying to confuse you. I was trying to educate you in this area.This is one of the things that pisses me off more than anything else about YEC's. They either think you are lying to them or they think by reading 2 webpages from some nutcase they think they know the same amount of physics as someone like me who has being doing this for a living since 1980.

OK as you have posed the question here.Yes it would appear somewhat aged, but not billions of years in age.You could still tell the difference.I would like you to retract your false allegation that I tried to mislead you.Very Christian of you.

But, Buz, that collapse time, as far as I know, hasn't been used to arrive at an age for the sun. In that case it is not relavant to this discussion. I'm glad you've finally been clearer about what you are getting at.However, you are right, if that was used to age the sun then it would appear older than 30,000 years.You still have not touched on the full apparent age of the sun. You have still not touched on the other aspects of the sun's nature.As a rough anaology, if we did have a real picture of Adam and Eve (or well mummified remains) and they had navels what would we conclude. It would unnecessarily appear as if they had undergone gestation and birth. This isn't something God would have done and He would also not put additional attributes into the sun to make it appear older than it has to appear.I don't think anyone has denyed any facts of your point, at least when you finally get around to making them clear. However, you have to explain all the facts not just some of them.

I feel Eta has copvered the technical side of the age of the sun, but Buz is stuck in the philosophical side. His God has to create a sun which must appear to be old in order to be functioning, but Buz does not want to go whole hog with the theory the the whole universe was created appearing as though it was 12 billion years old - I presume he doesn't like the apparent 'deceit' on God's part.But this appearance is unavoidable. If God created the universe as a static snapshot, it would immediately collapse. So He had to create it with momentum. The Earth had to be moving in it's orbit, just as though it had just moved from an earlier position!In the same way, any living organism would be created with new cells in the process of forming, and 'old' cells dying off and being eliminated through natural processes. A created tree would presumably have tree rings, and Adam would have a navel!So get rid of this picture of a 'static' universe being created. The universe is a PROCESS, and must be created with all its processes in action, giving an appearance of age. The very fact that Earth must be created moving in it's orbit gives the 'deceit' of previous time. There is no other way to do it. So don't pick on God. (All this from an atheist!!!).But Buz is left with the mystery of why 12 billion years of apparent history is necessary, when He could have managed with 1 million or less. Guess we need a new revelation to solve this mystery, but in the meantime science is the best we have.Mike.

The tree rings and navel are not the same as the Earth moving in orbit. There is no need for the navel and no need for rings to have everything work perfectly well.The fact that the earth would need to be moving to stay in orbit is fine but that in no way implies it has been around more than once.If the sun was created with no helium would it collapse? If the tree had no rings would it fall over? If stars were "appearing" as their light reached us would that cause the universe to collapse? I don't get the connection.Some of the processes must be "in action" but why does that demonstrate that all of them must be both "in action" and have piled up an apparent history of that action haveing been going on for a long time?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]

quote:

---

I am an astrophysicist for a living. I am pretty well versed on stellar physics.

---

That's fine. I respect you as knowledgable in physics. What ticks me is that I ask you a simple question that really needs no degree in physics to answer and you don't seem to want to give a simple forthright answer, but want to complicate things so as not to admit that the sun, whether old or new/created will have the appearance of age. Apparantly you don't want to engage in any discussion which involves the possibility of the supernatural without belittling the counterpart rather than addressing the possibilities.

quote:

---

But you seem not to be able to consistently ask the same question. I thought I understood.

---

The fudging of you and Ned made it necessary for me to continually narrow down and simplify the question, but no I din't change the basic question atol. That's a copout.

quote:

---

I WILL ANSWER YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION (AND NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME)

​

THE SUN TO FUNCTION AS IT DOES, DOES NOT NEED AN APPEARANCE OF GREAT AGE.

​

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOUR GOD CREATED IT 7000 YEARS AGO HE NEEDLESSLY AS PART OF THAT CREATION ADDED AN AGING.

---

The formation processes which physicists believe were necessary to have formed the sun from the gaseous dusty nebula to the collapse into a protostar to compressed/heated core to the firey ball capabable of sustaining life on earth we see are assumed by them to have taken millions years. If our sun was created in one day, having eliminated these loooong processes, the physicist is still going to look at it and swear it's millions of years old. Simple as that.So what needless stuff did the creator add to the mix so as to allegedly deceive you people??

quote:

---

This is one of the things that pisses me off more than anything else about YEC's. They either think you are lying to them or they think by reading 2 webpages from some nutcase they think they know the same amount of physics as someone like me who has being doing this for a living since 1980.

---

Eta, I suggest you climb down off your high horse and forthrightly talk sense with us rather than evading the issues and things will go better in that regard. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-30-2003]

quote:

---

But Buz is left with the mystery of why 12 billion years of apparent history is necessary, when He could have managed with 1 million or less. Guess we need a new revelation to solve this mystery, but in the meantime science is the best we have.

---

Mike,1. I happen to be a creationist who believes there has forever been a universe and God (Jehovah) has been creating, recreating and destroying at will forever. Otherwise he'd be floating out there in space for endless eons of eternity past before before he began creating with nothing around him and nothing to do. That's senseless, imo, and I try to convince those of my fellow creationists this who think somehow that it all was created 6000 years ago.2. If he created Adam in one day in tact as an adult, why should it be any more of a task for an omnipotent God to create a sun in one day as fully formed, appearing with age just as the man was?3. For you people to suggest that God was trying to lie, trick, deceive by creating with the appearance of age is just senseless. He made the stuff to function then and there and that's what he had to do. Could he have done it differently? Of course, but why should we as mere creatures try to tell the creator he coulda done it better?

Btw, Mike and Eta, I'm not claiming that the sun itself would be considered by physicists to be billions of years old as you seem to be implying.

A penny for Lizzard Breath's thoughts on all this. LB, I didn't mean to hog up the discussion here. I was drawn into defending my character, ideology and position here as well as to squelch the false charge that our god is deceitful and meanspirited. Feel free to carry on.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-30-2003]

Creating meteorites recently that show precisely the chemical signature, based on four or five different isotopes, of being precisely 4,560,000,000 years old, and that are completely devoid of several other isotopes (like aluminum-26) but do contain their daughter isotopes - that's at least peculiar. Just as peculiar as telling us poor dumb humans that we were created from dust 6000 (or however many...) years ago and then planting fossil and genetic evidence that flatly contradicts that possibility.Maybe not lying or tricking, but just creating lots of misleading stage-dressing?And Buz, you never answered my question: If Day Three was perhaps thousands of years long, how did those trees, herbs, and grasses photosynthesize without sunlight? And even if it was one of our days long, why did they leave no fossils before the first land animals? For that matter, why did the grasses leave not a single fossil - no pollen, nothing - in any rock that has dinosaur fossils?

I finally understand your question - I thinkYour quote:__________________________
The formation processes which physicists believe were necessary to have formed the sun from the gaseous dusty nebula to the collapse into a protostar to compressed/heated core to the firey ball capabable of sustaining life on earth we see are assumed by them to have taken millions years. If our sun was created in one day, having eliminated these loooong processes, the physicist is still going to look at it and swear it's millions of years old. Simple as that.So what needless stuff did the creator add to the mix so as to allegedly deceive you people??
__________________________You are asking could all the protostar condensation etc. have been condensed into one day - and if it was then we would think it was old even though it wasn't.Is that what you meant?The answer to that is NO.I could tell the difference bewtween the two. edited the lines to fix page width - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-30-2003]

quote:

---

OK as you have posed the question here.
Yes it would appear somewhat aged, but not billions of years in age.

---

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:

---

You could still tell the difference.

---

Oh?? So how/what??

quote:

---

I would like you to retract your false allegation that I tried to mislead you.
Very Christian of you.

---

It would not be Christian of me to lie. I still believe you and Ned were not being forthright in this discussion, evading the point I was obviously trying to make. Sorry, no retraction forthcoming unless I become convinced otherwise. My allegations are honest and from the heart, but I hold no grudges. Peace.

quote:

---

You are asking could all the protostar condensation etc. have been condensed into one day - and if it was then we would think it was old even though it wasn't.

---

No, Eta, That's not what I'm asking/saying atol. Now you're talking outa your field. That's not how creation works, imo.
That's like sayin when God made Adam, he went through some kinda pregnancy birth process, fed him, weaned him and the whole lot all in one day to arrive at an adult male. Nonsense! He simply made him to function as an adult as he wanted him to be our of dirt. Same with the sun. I don't know how he did it, but according to his words he accomplished it in one day. I assume he simply spoke it into existence as he said he did and it appeared intact, looking as it it had gone through the process as we see it. I'm sure though, being omnipotent as he is if he wanted to fast forward the whole alleged process into one day, he could do it that way. How he did it is quite irrevelant because only he knows.

Look we had completely crossed wires earlier.Did I get your intent correct in my last post?And no I never intended to mislead, I was honestly trying to answer you as best I could.But no matter how you create a star in one day versus several million years for condensation and 4.5 billion extra years to get to what we see today - I can distinguish between all of these.You said you didn't want a physics lecture - I'll go into more detail IF we are finally agreeing on the question.