A young sun - a response

Well then let's go with question one. What don't you understand about the question?

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.

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]

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]

My Hebrew - English interlinear has the nearest Hebrew - English equivalent as "greater luminary" ruling the day and the "lesser luminary" ruling the night, both of which obviously refer to the sun and the moon. All the translators I am aware of have had not problem figuring this out. It's a no brainer.

I REPEAT TO ETA, AND TO THE REST OF YOU DESPERATE PEOPLE, STRAINING AT GNATS AND SWALLOWING CAMELS: Please address this important fact.

Ned, there's only one reason this thread's been going on and on about the age appearance theme. That reason is the town physicist who likes to play these chesslike word games and when I get him in checkmate you people keep helping him move the players around, necessitating for me to rearrange them back to checkmate. For example, here's some posting history examples of Eta's statements which have been necessitating the length and absurdity of this debate: ......And statements like this of JonF: 1. This all began with my plain and factual statement that a created sun would show appearance of age. As to whose hypothesis of how old it would appear was not what I intended to get into, as that's just what it all is, imo, since nobody's actually been there and seen inside of it so as to test exactly what's there. All I'm sayng is it's gotta look scores of millions if not billions of years old to scientists to look like what we see up there today.2. Nobody has specifically defined exactly what it is that a sun appearing and doing what our sun is looking like and doing would not need if the sun we are looking at were a created sun.

Eta, how in tarnation can you blatantly claim you've been consistent in light of the following quotes from you in this thread??
We've all, including you agreed that a fully formed sun as ours would need to be at minimum many millions of years old from birth to function. Correct??So Eta, do you still hold to the your cited quotes here, or are you simply sweeping them under the proverbial rug in claiming you've been consistent?? Fair warning this round.............CHECKMATE!!------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-16-2003]

Yah Ned, this is your assumption or hypothesis, as is the way the universe was and looked scores of millions to billions of years ago and the primordial state of things in it.I've consistently argued that any fully formed star MUST at least have enough age to call it having the appearance of age which has been the case all through this thread. As I've documented twice, Eta has flat out denied this in several of his posts. That is what's driven this thread page after page.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-16-2003]

So he has to have you say so? He's not man enough to admit it himself, choosing rather to go on and on tiptoing in the tulips? I'm sure he's a very qualified physicist, but I'll not allow him to make this creo look like I've got stupid written all over me, just because I lack his academic credentials.

Where've you been these 17 pages, Loudmouth?? I've gone over all that adnausium with these other people. I'm simply agreeng with the phisicists and scientists, THAT A FULLY FUNCTIONING STAR MUST HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than 6000 years, likely many, many millions to billions. H E L L O!!

I've made my point. As for this hypothesis and that hypothesis in determining what's inside of this star, nearly a hundred million miles removed, neither the physist nor all the other wise men can tell for sure, so I'll leave it that it MUST have the appearance of age, contrary to what so many have been trying to deny in creo-evo discussions and debates in and out of academia classrooms.

Ok, Loudmouth. Peace, and my apologies for being curt about it with you. This debate has gotten me a bit riled.