A young sun - a response

Well a suddenly created Sun - created so it appears visually as we see it - would have an age calculated to be less than say a year or two.

Doesn't the sun have to have some suggestions of age to operate? Not an age of billions of years but some age at least?Buzsaw, why bother with all this anyway. It might help if you told Eta what you are getting at? You already accept an old age as you are not a YEC anyway. Why bother with all this? I'd kind of like to understand that as well.You've spoken of evasiveness, but maybe that's just because you aren't laying out your line of reasoning.------------------
Common sense isn't

I see you want to go the long route, so I'll go back to your statement that brought on my question:Eta said in post 180:
"But my whole point is THAT IT DOESN'T have to look old to do it's job"Buz question:
"How old do you estimate a complete operating suddenly created sun would look like such as our sun in order to do what it is doing for the earth?Eta evades a forthrigh answer to how old buz asks the sun would LOOK by saying it would CALCULATE to be less than a year.Buz rephrases now:Eta, if the sun/star were indeed created some 6000 years ago and it looked like our sun and does what it need to do for earth, how old would you calculate it to LOOK since you said a created sun doesn't need to look old to do it's job? In answer please bear in mind that you have already said our sun would likely be billions of years old and I would assume believe it takes scores of millions of years for any functioning sun/star to begin doing what our sun is doing.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-14-2003]

Because Eta's last words in this debate reverted back to the created sun again not needing to look old. You keep faulting me, falsely accusing me of not laying out my line of reasoning when you two have behaved nothing but unreasonabe in this whole debate, playing your games of evade.

Buzsaw, stop evading yourself! Tell us the scenerio you are proposing and Eta will try to give you and idea of what we would see. I'll try to give both "question" and answer and let Eta correct me as needed on the answers and you correct me on the questions.If the sun was magiced into existance by an instantaneous act of creation then it could be exactly 6,000 years old. However, our scientific understanding of our stars form would tell us that it was some millions of years old as it would require that long for it to condence from a nebula. That isn't anything to do with what we would see since the condensation wouldn't be a part of the operation of the sun.Other than that it could have been shinning for the time taken for the internal energy to reach the surface. How long was that? It was answered before. I don't recall any other considerations.Is that the question you're asking? It has been answered about half a dozen times as far as I can remember. What don't you understand about the answer?

It depends on how the alleged Creator decided to do it.The sun would work perfectly well if it was created with an apparent age of a few million to a few tens of millions of years old; that is, somewhere between 0.01% and 1% of the age we measure now. It would also work perfectly well if created with an apparent age anywhere between that and what we measure now.There is no known reason why a Creator would have to create a sun with an age anywhere near what we measure in order for the sun to work.In other words, if you want to believe that a Creator created the Sun 6,000 or so years ago, you must also believe that she created that Sun with an appearance of great age, and we don't know of any reason why she should do that. She also created everything with an appearance of age so every test we apply tells us that the Earth and the Universe are far more than 6,000 years old, and there is no known operational reason why she should do that; everyhting in the Universe would work perfectly well if it didn't look anywhere near as old as it looks. The only reason that people have been able to come up with is that she's trying to trick us; and most people find that explanation unacceptable on theological grounds.So most people reject the idea that a Creator created the Universe 6,000 or so years ago with an appearance of age, because believing that requires believing in a trickster God.

I think I have already answered clearly. So I am not evading anything, I resent that.You seem to be misunderstanding the use of the words 'look' and 'calculate'.How else am I to use the word 'look' - I ave to calculate the age off observations (i.e. the look) to answer your question.I shall repeat:If the Sun was created 6000 years ago and (in your words) looked like the Sun and performed as we need it to perform then I would CALCULATE it's age as say a few thousand years old. BUT when I do this for the Sun we see in our sky I get an answer much greater than this.But reading your last comment on the 'scores of millions of years' you are shifting the goal posts. Because you started with the premise of 'created 6000 years ago AND appearing as it does today' but then you hint at the regularly accepted star formation process (the millions of years comment.)If it was created 6000 years ago and then appeared as a 'brand new just out of the collapsing cloud' star it would not even look like we see it today at all.Will you lay off the EVASION comments. Why the hell would I evade something I do for a living (teaching and research?)

But in short ambiguous and contradictive statement you omitted the word 'look' which could appear to be an evasion, for one can calculate on the basis of my question, which stated that the sun/star being calculated was a suddenly created one. My question was about how old the created sun/star would be calculated/estimated to look or appear to science/physics on the basis of what the age of any star/sun would appear, for the debate in EvC certain things in the universe like a star could be created suddenly. My contention is that yes, they can but in order to do so they would have to appear with age as did Adam, in that there had to be the appearance of them being formed over a period of time as the majority of scientists believe.Your curt statement, at least implying, that a fully formed and operating sun would appear less than a year or two in age to scientists on earth is foolish, nonsensical and evasive. I think you know it. Why should you resent my saying that when you should know and admit that you were playing word games here? Ok, we both see the same sun.
1. Most creationists believe it was suddenly created a few thousand years old with the appearance of age.
2. Most evolutionists believe it is billions of years old and took many millions of years just to fully form.
3. My question is that IF OUR HYPOTHESIS IS RIGHT and it was indeed created as we believe, how old would it look so far as to the calculations of physics/science? Eta, if you would take my advice and cut and paste the exact words of my statement which you are responding to and please stick to answering my exact questions or responding to my exact statements, one at a time, we could dialogue effectively. But no, you refuse to do this and continually muddle my statements, the above being a classic example.
To be specific:
My statement was clearly about a fully formed and functioning sun which warms the earth as it is doing and you spin it to mean a forming nonfunctional sun.If I were to ask you how old any mature man would APPEAR, I suppose you would do the same for Adam, by saying, 'well, yadyaya, the day old embryo, yadyaya womb/birth, yadyaya.'Adam appeared to be several decades old when he was fully formed and operative as an adult man. I tried to make this clear as to the sun. We're not talking about how old it would look in a few thousand years of it forming according to science. I made that clear. It is clear that you people simply refuse to allow us who debate EvC in these forums any consideration as to our position, instead insisting we must debate on the terms of your hypothesis, just as you do in our schools. But we're not in school here and because I refuse to cowtow to your games you get ticked. Be fair and considerate and this won't happen.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-15-2003]

It would look as if it were billions of years old, and God would be lying to us.

a

Wow this is difficult - we perpetually seem to confuse.If the sun was created 6000 years ago BUT it appears as we see it today then I would still be able to tell it's youth.In other words, it would visually look about the same, it would provide us energy that we need BUT other indicators would give that youth away.Thus, if God created the Sun 6000 years ago, he not only created the Sun BUT he also built in to that creation some other indicators (not required for it's function as our energy source) that would lead us to calculate a much greater age.

That's just another way of saying God couldn't have created anything like man, beast earth, sun, stars, rocks etc, anything already intact rather than having to evolve, without lying. So, you're saying God was also lying when/if he created Adam as an adult rather than a babe?

So what would he have built into a fully existing functional sun to make it look old which would be un-necessary?? So as to not confuse, let's begin with the existence of it as a bright sun warming the earth. We've already established that it would APPEAR TO BE many millions of years old from it's beginning JUST TO EXIST AS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STAR, have we not?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-15-2003]

How could you have been having this discussion for weeks and not have gotten clear a point (which I think you made the first time) that there are necessary appearances of age and unnecessary appearances of age.We can take it as a given (though I can't justify it, maybe he had to be big enough to feed himself) that Adam had to be created full grown. So that, given the assumption, is a necessary appearance of age. However, since he wasn't "born" he did not need a belly button. If he had one that would be an unnecessary appearance of age.We can give God the necessary appearances of age in anything but if he put in unnecessary appearances of age then I can't see any reason other than deception.As Eta has pointed out the sun's apparent age of billions of years is either correct or an unnecessary appearance of age.Why is this so very hard for you to keep straight? Could you clarify your views?

Buz:Please refer me to the verse where God proclaimed the "Light" He created to be "the Sun." I'm finding where He "created Light," found that it was "good," and separated it from "darkness." But then I find that He "called the Light: Day! and the darkness He called: Night!"I also find where He created the Dome and called it "Heaven" and set in the dome "greater light" for day, and "lesser light" for night. Does the Dome rotate and thereby cause the "setting" and the "dawning" of "Light?" Ooops, I didn't mean to spiral off into astrology; sorry.Anyway, I still don't find a definite proclamation of the creation of "the Sun." Was there no Hebrew word for "the Sun" either created, set aside, or otherwise provided between 6000 and 200 BCE? Did Moses, the writer of Genesis, not know a word for "the Sun" after years of schooling in Egypt? I'm bewildered.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-15-2003]