A young sun - a response

..........and the fantasy/hypothesis of those who think they know what has allegedly made the sun tic for these alleged billions of years. I didn't say it had to be that old, just that it had to be old enough to do what it's doing for us today on earth and look like it looks to us. It all depends on how you interpret what you see. None of us can prove to be absolutely correct on all the nuts n bolts stuff about it. Maybe because those who did the various measuring and determining how to measure all had the same biases. It's all hypothesis, imo. I'll leave it at that and let others discuss the rest.I've read where physicists figure the sun to have been around 30 million years old before graduating from a protostar to a full fledged hydrogen burning star. That's many millions, imo, not a few million.

[/qs]Why is Buz arguing agains the sun being old, anyway? Isn't he an OEC?[/qs]I covered that earlier in the thread, Rei. It has to do with the sun being created after the creation of the earth, the sun being created on day four (after the plants). I'm not saying it has to be 6000y like the creatures. Why? Because it was created sometime during day four and not until it was actually created did it and the moon become the measure for days, seasons and years, etc.

Ok, sore looser, I'll leave you be, but don't forget, I didn;t ask for this fight, and I refuse to be made out to be a fool by you. Each reader can decide for themselves.Ned has already given his opinion, so it's not just me. Don't forget that. Have a good evening.
Buz

I was referencing this statement:

Unlike my counterparts, I debated forthrightly, fairly and squarely from a creationist view. Call it fantasy or whatever you wish, but isn't that what this board is about? Spell creationist......C R E A T I O N I S T. That means we believe a creator created things in tact with appearance of age. If you people can't handle that and accept our input here on that basis, it is you who have the problem. You need to convince Percy to reinvest his money into an exclusive evolution discussion. Or you can go to some forum where you don't don't have to deal with fantasy.People here wring their hands because creos don't show up or stay long and then when we do show we get these demeaning insults and word games such as has been the case here. We are often expected to debate on EVO terms, all the while agreeing with EVO HYPOTHESIS. When we insist on arguing on our own hypothesis, we're treated like ignoramuses. To be an accepted creo here one must often bow to the whims and demands of our counterparts such as the ones I've encountered on this thread. If you want to dialogue with Mr buz, expect Mr buz to debate on the basis of the supernatural as creos are suppose to do. Otherwise, stick to engaging creos who are willing to dance with you to your secularistic tune.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-17-2003]

Wi, if you would care to take the time to cut and paste statements of mine you think I've lost the debate on, I'd be willing to address them. Where were you when I posted them, if indeed your allegations are valid? Or do you prefer to take these bogus pot shots into the air after all's said and done?

Hey JL, thanks for the supportive input. I like your milk shake analogy, but I see Eta has already begun his usual word/spin job on it and as usual confusing your position with generalizations. Careful about refuting him. He blows up in your face. He belongs in his classroom where they can't talk back. LOL.

As for me, my central theme all along has been that the sun, being a star fully formed and emitting the amount of heat our sun is emitting to earth MUST, in fact, to the physicist, appear old, very, very much older than 6000y by reason of the fact that it exists fully formed and able to do what is required for it to do for us today on earth. I'm not counting the time for the light to reach earth, as the implication in the Bible is that after day four it was lighting the earth.To get drawn into how old discussion about the scientific hypothesis/assumptions of how much helium and so forth is involved beyond that is futile, because nothing has been proven and nobody would be able to know enough provable data to say how much of this or that was going on inside the sun either billions of years ago or 6000 years ago. Science is continually revising, updating and adjusting theories and hypothesis on various subjects as new methods and techniques emerge.The problem comes when you people act like gods yourself, acting as though you have superhuman telescopic/Xray eyes able to dogmatically insist this or that is how it's got to be and had to be eons ago.

Eta, you've told me off twice now to "BUG OFF!!" after your tirades and insults about poor spelling and such when my spelling is as good as most degreed folks here in town. Then you continue to go on. Which is it, do we dialogue or do I bug off? If it's still bug off, I'll honor your request. If you want to be civil and talk, we'll talk. You call it. I'm thick skinned and forgiving, but expect a measure of respect.

But nobodys proved it's age. I've established my original and ongoing position that it must look old which nobody's been able to refute. Just how old is debatable and unprovable so I don't consider it worthwhile.Eta appears to be now raising the bar to eliminate the 30,000,000 year alleged protostar phase of our sun's existence that physicists are claimig if I understand his last post. If that's the case I'm cryin "foul." The age of the sun, if evolved begins with the beginning it's nebula, imo, and certainly from when it would, according to physists become a protostar, much like a tree is as old as when it was planted, though it hasn't produced leaves and fruit all of it's life.So why am I being bullheaded when my stated purpose from the gitgo was never to debate the age of the sun?Btw, Wi, I'm still willing to discuss all these erroneous claims by me that you alluded to earlier if you care to document some.

Ned, I've made it clear that I believe our sun was created a few thousand years ago as a fully formed functioning star. Science says it took the sun 30,000,000 years just to graduate from a protostar into a fully formed star if it were formed naturally. Right? So the LEAST, I say, the least it could look to evo science would be 30my from birth and regardless of how aged science thinks it is, the minimum of 30my is a whooooole lot longer than a few thousand, so I am absolutely correct in insisting it was created with the appearance of great age, if indeed it was created a few thousand years ago. Why is this so hard for you intelligent people to accept? I can't for the life of me figure how you cannot simply admit that and put it to rest.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-18-2003]

Ned, I've given you time after time after time after time after time the reason why it would appear old. Please reread and get real.Eta's bogus idea that it's protostar stage doesn't count in calculating age is BOGUS BUNK TO DENY THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS SO AS NOT TO ADMIT BUZ IS RIGHT.Shame on him and I pitty his students if this is his style of ejukating! ------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-18-2003]

WI, PLEASE REREAD. MY CLAIM IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR AT LEAST 30MYO BY EVO SCIENCE. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS DECLARING IT'S APPARANT AGE. IF IT WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR AT LEAST, I SAY, AT LEAST, I SAY AT LEAST (GET IT?) 30MYO, THAT MAKES IT HAVING THE APPEARANCE OF AGE.

As for my part of this loooooooong senseless debacle, my intent from the gitgo was to simply establish that it must appear old to be fully formed and functional, not to make a determination of what age it should look like. According to my literal reading of Genesis one, there could possibly be any amount of time between the age of the earth and that of the sun, the earth being created on day one, which nobody can measure, the sun not being created yet to measure it.I need to be outa town today and won't be able to respond to any further remarks if the thread is closed, but that's ok.
Admin has been veeeeery patient here in allowing us to duke it out through all these pages without interference. Thanks!buz------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Eta, my understanding is that, not counting the collapse of the nebula, etc, the protostar phase itself would be about 30myo. How can you eliminate the protostar phase in it's apparant age? That's as bogus as saying a corn stalk's age is only determined from the time it's first ear appears.