A young sun - a response

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.

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]

Ok, I think there is general agreement on this.But, Buz, so what?You already agree that the universe isn't young. So that doesn't matter to you.The age that would "appear" would be much less than the age we actualy see (unless there was some trickery going on). So it doesn't help show that the ages we have are only "apparent".I don't understand why you've gone on so long on this issue. Can you explain?

Buz, you seem to have a grasping problem yourself. The issue is NOT that the sun appears older than 6,000 years. The issue is that the sun appears older than it HAS to. You have ignored that more than half a dozen times I'm athinking.

You're conjecturing gets a bit silly doesn' it? The sun is going to do some damage to parts of the solar system. In about another 4 or so Gyrs! It is not going to destroy the galaxy.I'm presuming you think the end by fire is near. If 4 billion years near? It now appears that he didn't make it old enough. LOL

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

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?

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?

Yea, WJ I guess that's what I've been trying to understand from Buzsaw. We all agreed with what he is asking days and days ago. But he keeps on going on about it without comeing to whatever conclusion he wants.------------------
Common sense isn't

LOL, Eta, I think you're having trouble wrapping your head around this silly game. Someone can "claim" anything. However, if they keep going down that path you end up with God the utterly mysterious or God the prankster. In either case all bets are off. We don't know what he's up to.In addition, you step outside of creation science and into purely religious argument. Not one I find interesting nor is it very useful to the political side of the movement since it doesn't get them into schools.So let's keep playing with this while we wait for Buz to explain what the heck he is getting at. Buzsaw is NOT a YEC by the way which makes this very mysterious to me.How about a biggy? There is helium in the sun! There would not be anymore than a little bit (comparitively, just that created since "creation" from the fusion process -- not a lot in 6,000 years I would think) if it was created to supply energy to the earth. It gets it's helium from the big bang's nucleosynthesis doesn't it? That isn't necessary for it to operate well is it?

To clarify this what is the abundance of helium in the sun? I am assuming it is somewhere in the 25% area (from primordeal abundance in the universe).If it was formed with zero helium (since that isn't necessary) we would now have only the helium formed by 6,000 (or whatever) years of fusion. I presume this would be very much less than 1%.This is a big difference if I'm right.Buzsaw, if I am right, then why is the the helium abundance much more than 25 times what it needs to be?

Eta is confused because you keep asking questions that have already been answered. He's been confused by trying to fit within your assumed viewe of things. That is a "created" sun doesn't need the condensation from a nebula time. Separately from that we have admitted to forgetting the time taken for energy to reach the surface.That was corrected a long time ago. The "no ones been there" argument is silly. It is still possible to make very good measurements about some aspects of the sun. If you disagree with those then explain your reasoning. You're an expert on steller physics now?millions of years -- you can reach that if you include all the necessary history to condensing a star, letting it reach ignition and then waiting for energy to reach the surface. I think we have covered all that and agree with you (and I think Eta does too).Tossing in "if not billions" doesn't get you anywhere. You've got to account for multipling the apparent age of the sun by between 100 and 1,000. You haven't explained that. You are, in fact, wrong. This has been done. Do you want calculations of exact amounts of elemental abundances? Why do you need that kind of detail? If you want your idea demonstrated you'll have to do the work. As noted above there is too much helium in the sun.Eta earlier was talking at his detailed astrophysicists level about other elements. You have to explain all those too of course. You and he seem to misunderstand each other because he is very close to the details of this kind of thing and you're on the other extreme.

I, for one, think that Eta did forget to include a think or two in the appearance of age estimate. I have, myself, given you that point.I think Eta has too. Now SO WHAT!???The sun has to appear to be up to some millions of year old. You have that point.However, it is constructed as if billions of years and formed of material that the big bang has been determined to produce.Your turn ----- Why?

No, Buzsaw, you are simply wrong. There is not need for more than a smidgen of helium in a 6,000 year old sun. The helium does not have to be there.Cosomologists and physicists have a reason for the helium. You do NOT.

Buz, you don't actually believe I'm agreeing with you on anything here do you? That is utterly astonding!!