A young sun - a response

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.

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

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. 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?

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. 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.

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. Please address this important question.

No, you are making that up. The physicists and scientists agree that a fully functioning sun must have an appearance of being older than 6000 years, likely a few millions and certainly not billions, and there is no known reason why it should appear to be billions of years old. "...Many, many millions to billions" is only your fantasy; nobody agrees with that.You're still ducking the question I asked in message 226: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?

IOW, you've made up your mind and your faith can withstand all assaults of evidence and reality.You haven't made any point, only assertions.You have no idea how much we know about the Sun and how we know.You have claimed that the Sun must appear to be "many, many millions to billions" of years old, with no evidence other than your wish that it be so. Your claim is directly contradicted by the evidence. Your claim is false. No participant in this thread agrees with you.

IOW, you have no idea and you don't care. A great example of the sterility and meaninglessness of creationism. One could argue that it's many millions. But it's not "many, many millions to billions", as you claimed. It's approximately 0.1% of what we measure the age of the Sun to be, supporting our claim that the Sun doesn't need to look anywhere near as old as it appears to be in order to do its job.

OK. We've agreed with you that a suddenly created sun would have to appear with some "implanted age". However, it would not need to have anything near the observed age, and you've been dancing and ducking the real issue for pages. Why would a creator create a universe that looks so terrifically old, by every test we can run, and why do all the different tests agree on the ages of the parts of the universe?-------

quote:

---

{buzsaw} 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

---

I've pointed out that nobody but you has claimed "many, many millions to billions". "Many, many millions to billions" is not required, as demonstrated by the posts throughout the thread, including one of yours: When I pointed out that 30 million is certainly not "many, many millions to billions", you ducked the issue.-----

quote:

---

{JonF} 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?

---

You've ducked this issue many times. You've consistently conflated the 4.5 billion year old sun that we see with the 30 or so million year old sun that is required for life on Earth. The "two differnt age suns" look very different. Or, as Nosy Ned said: You ducked that issue as you did when Eta asked: ------

quote:

---

{buzsaw} So what needless stuff did the creator add to the mix so as to allegedly deceive you people??

---

Helium, Lithium abundance, Beryllium abundance, C,N,O abundances. Depth of the Convection zone. Sound speed profile with depth. Maybe measures of the quadrupole moment. You have ignored the fact the Eta and others havepointed out exactly what unecessary appearance of age the Sun has.----------------

quote:

---

{buzsaw} Ok Ned, if our present sun were, say 7000 years of age since created, wouldn't it have to appear as and old sun as it evidently does?

---

The answer is NO, it would not have to appear anywhere near as old as it does, an appearance of about 0.1% of the age we measure would work just fine.

That's a really terrible analogy.A better one would have ten different and independent tests indicating that the milkshake was assembled ten years ago, and six independent tests indicating that the refrigerator was constructed before the milkshake, and twenty independent tests indicating that refrigerator was constructed twenty years ago, and one book written by an unknown author but claiming divine inspiration indicating that the milkshake was created from nothing yesterday and the refrigerator was created form nothing this morning.