|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A young sun - a response | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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. No, absolutely not. The point is that, if God created everything, He could have created it without the appearance of the great age that it has. The sun could appear much younger than it is. The many differnt tests we have could disagree as to how old various things are. But, all the tests we run do agree.
So, you're saying God was also lying when/if he created Adam as an adult rather than a babe No, I'm not. First, a hypothetical Adam's age is something we can't test scientifically, so it's outside the realm of science. Second, that's an item which wouldn't work without some appearance of age, just as the Sun needs to appear to be at least a few million years old to operate. But in your scenario there's no need for everything to appear as old as it does. For example, there's no reason why the Earth appears to be the same age as the Sun. Given that a Sun that appears to be a few million years old today would work fine, and given that an Earth that appeared to be 6,000 years old today by radiometric dating would work fine, why should both the Sun and Earth appear to be 4.5 billion years old by many different and independent measuremnt methods?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So what would he have built into a fully existing functional sun to make it look old which would be un-necessary?? Eta can probably answer this much better than I can, but for one thing He would have to make it out of elements in the ratios that would appear in a 4.5 billion year old star rather than the ratios that would appear in, say, a 10 million year old star.
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? That actually depends on how you define the age of a star. I've been implicitly assuming it's measured from the point at which significant internal heat appears. Eta may be using a different definition. And, no, we haven't established that it would appear to be many millions of years old. Define "many" and define from what point you would measure the age of a start that formed by condensing form a nebula.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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? 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
I don't really want to jump in on this thread, but I do want to point out one thing.
Buz is equating the creation of the sun with apparent age to the creating of Adam with apparent age. IF the only criteria that Adam had to fulfill was, for example, the ability to procreate...the oldest he would have had to appear would be puberty age. The arguments about the sun's appearance would be like saying Adam was created at the age of 100 when to fulfill the requirements he would only have to be created at puberty. (I'll go back to my corner now) ------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I REPEAT TO ETA, AND TO THE REST OF YOU DESPERATE PEOPLE, STRAINING AT GNATS AND SWALLOWING CAMELS:
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? Please address this important fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Buzsaw, you seem to have gone to pains to have others concede that the sun would need to appear to be a couple of million years old (when created instantaneously) for it to produce sufficient radiation output to support the biological entities which were to be created in the following days(?). However you completely ignore the fact that the sun displays features that are consistent with it being 4.5 billion years old, not just a couple of million years old. Why would the sun show features inconsistent with its real age if they are not necessary to serve the purpose of irradiating the earth and its biosphere?
Do you have your own personal interpretation of some religious text which indicates that the sun is millions of years old rather than 4.5 billion years old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
quote: Please address this important fact. It's not a fact until you define "many millions", as I asked you to do in message 226 and we agree. Nonetheless, it's been addressed.
Given that a Sun that appears to be a few million years old today would work fine, and given that an Earth that appeared to be 6,000 years old today by radiometric dating would work fine, why should both the Sun and Earth appear to be 4.5 billion years old by many different and independent measurement methods? Please address this important question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
to support the biological entities which were to be created in the following days(?).
Don't forget the previous day, too - all those grasses and herbs predate the Genesis sun, ya know... And Eta, can we add isotopes like aluminum-26 to your list? We have its daughter isotope out in the solar nebula (as meteorites, today) but none of it at all!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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. 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:
Eta: Message 218: 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. Eta: Message 211: 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. Eta: Message 180: But my whole point is THAT IT DOESN'T have to look old to do it's job. Eta: Message 152: 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. ......And statements like this of JonF:
JonF Message 216: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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024