A young sun - a response

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.

Several things, not necessary for it to work WOULD show it's age as greater than 6000 years, these are:Lithium abundance, Beryllium abundance, C,N,O abundances. Depth of the Convection zone. Sound speed profile with depth. Maybe measures of the quadrupole moment.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-15-2003][This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-15-2003]

But how does this relate to your earlier question?Yes by accepted theory it would take millions of years BUT you earlier were saying if it was created 'as is'. And I said then it would be obviously young from the indicators I mentioned a couple of posts back.

Well there is no Al 26 in the Sun. But this really doesn't help the argument as someone could claim that the Sun was created 6000 years ago without any to begin with.

No you don't need Helium initially.Actually before Hydrogen burning begins the protostar will undergo Deuterium burning at approx. 1,000,000 K. This produces Helium 3 anyway.

My statements all say basically the same thing.Where is your confusion? I have been consistent. I have answered this!It would not need the various elemental abundances we measure - they are age indicators. It could function without these signs. It would have a differing internal structure to some extent - again it need not have this - again an indicator of age.How much clearer can I get.

NO I HAVE NOT - YOU **** ***!!!!!!!!!YES I AM PISSED OFF DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO I WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW IN ONE OF MY CLASSES.FOR THE FINAL ******* TIME - NO NO NO NO NOA STAR DOES NOT - I REPEAT NOT - HAVE TO HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF AGE TO PERFORM AS IT DOES - BUT BUT BUT IT DOES HAVE THAT APPEARANCE OF GREAT AGE.HENCE IT IS BLOODY WELL OLD YOU **** ****.NOW BUGGER OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PSApologies to all except Buzsaw but I have had enough of being accused of misleading or avoiding the issue by someone who couldn't figure his way past a quadratic equation.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-16-2003]

Your ignorance shines through.I don't think a single person commenting here agrees with you.I took the time to honestly answer you, but I am thinking you just don't understand the basics to even follow the reasoning.Learn to spell!!Your errors are not just typographical errors but seemingly the result of poor education or lack of care. Either way it's an indictment.

Not knowing what questions to ask.When the responses did not conform to his preconceived notions it was 'shoot the bloody messenger' time.Not everyone is cut out to understand concepts outside of everyday experience. Buzsaw is a great example of someone who has trouble with anything of a scientific nature.It is a foreign subject AND shall forever remain as such.

Ah - so you finally state your position. Why did he create with this appearance since it isn't necessary for the Sun to function? My point all along.

Well I see your point BUT the problem is that Creation Scientists (and their supporters) try to explain their Creation myth with science.Then they are on our domain and so should expect scientific nonsense to be treated as such.If they stuck to 'God did it by miracle' and leave it at that - then these scientific arguments wouldn't occur.Of course the argument would shift to philosophy/metaphysics because many would hold that miracles and the like is just a 'fairy tale' to explain ignorance.

No problem 'creating just as it is now' except for the fact WHY create it with an appearance of age? It does not need that appearance for it to function.

This is why there is little point discussing the subject. YES we can make some definitive statements about what has to have gone on inside the Sun. The standard stellar evolution theory is based upon tried and tested atomic physics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. The basic picture for solar type main sequence stars has not changed in 50-60 years. Sure, details have been worked upon BUT the plain vanilla modeling is well entrenched.I notice one thing you refer to, which was responsible for some confusion on your part, is the time for a star to collapse from a cloud. This really has no bearing on the argument because any information from that era is essentially wiped out once the star arrives upon the main sequence. The reason being that the star earlier than the main sequence is fully convective and homogenised.

NOI have told you this is NOT the case AND I gave you the properties that DON'T have to be as they are for the Sun to work BUT give it an appearance of age.What more can I say to tell you this?

Well for one thing I was taking the zero point from when the Sun arrived on the Main Sequence.You cannot get any direct information for the time to collapse (i.e. your 30 million year figure) because that information is inevitably lost. The star in collapse is in a hydrodynamic state (fully convective). This totally homogenises it's material and it rotates as a solid body. You can only start inferring an age from when this phase is over.