A young sun - a response

Buz, the point of this is the apparent age of the sun under two different scenarios. Isn't it?It has taken awhile to clarify what each side is saying about those scenarios. Each side may have had to iterate a bit to get things right. That is a teeny, tiny little nit.What we have arrived at are two different predictions of the two scenarios.Your's has little helium in the sun (and other differences). Your's is wrong.It is now you turn to make iterative corrections to your scenario to fix it. We fixed ours.

Jazz, Buz Do we agree that the central point of this thread is the age that the sun appears to be? It is the creationists view of the science that is being debated. Some of us don't care about the spritual world while others do just as much as you do.You say creationists study science. What does your science study tell you about the sun? What can we conclude from it's make up? Why is it as it is? In what way is your conclusions about the sun different from that of a real astrophysicists like Eta? Why are they different from the science study? Do you have different data than he does or different logic or have you found errors in the calculations done by real astrophysicists?Are your scientific conclusions different from the conclusions of your study of the science? Why are they, if they are?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]

Maybe Buz could use a little help with the scales we are talking about. 30 million is the approximate necessary age of the sun (let's say if no one disagrees with that). 4,500 million is the apparent age. Note, Buz we are comparing 30 with 4,500. In this context 30 is not many, many. 4,500 is rather a lot, maybe even many, 30 is a few.It is the 4,470 that you have ignored and not even attempted to explain. Instead you're all hung up on the 30.Meanwhile, how many of the creationists are going to be happy with you 30,000 thousands of years? They want 6 thousand years. You want 5,000 times more than they do.

But we are discussing the science here Buz. Certainly there is revising and adjusting going on. But at any time there is the best that we have. To say that it might be wrong in some way is true but rather meaningless. Can it be wrong by anything like the factor of 100+ that you need? Why would you expect that?Jazz has told us about the study of science that creationists do. I presume that means he can supply the details that would lead them to even suspect where this error of 100+ timesor, if they are YECs, the 100 * 5,000 times could come from.You don't want to get into a discussion because you haven't a leg to stand on.I'm a bit curious, btw, does Jazz agree with your 30,000 thousands of years old number or does he want the 6 thousands of years number? In fact, I'm still not clear if you think the sun is 30 million years old or only appears to be that old.

Buzsaw, exactly what do you want? Would the sun's birth certificate be required? What do you mean when you say "proved"?There is one group that has a very well reasoned, evidence based for a determination of the sun's age. There is only one[/b].If you have some explicit complaints with it then let's see them.In any case, you seem to accept a 30 million year old sun. Or do you?If you accept that why not a 4.5 billion year old sun?

Ok, I finally understand. Or maybe I do.
Let me paraphrase.The sun was created by God a few thousand years ago. It appears to be maybe millions of years old because it must so that it will work. You agree that God is not a prankster.However, the sun is actually determined to be billions of years old. Or you would say it "appears" to be billions of years old. However, you have no reason why it needs to appear that way.Or have you given a reason and I missed it?It isn't simply the appearance of age, but the actual magnitude that comes into play.I must thank you for this. I have had the "He made it look that way" argument used before. However, no one has, to me, pointed out the need for some appearance just so things work. However, in this case you still end up with something similar to Adam having a belly button. There is too much appearance of age. You haven't explained the extra billions of years.

The correct wording of this is:The interpretation is wrong. A point made centuries ago by Galileo.

No, you have not! You note that it would have to appear old to work. But it appears OLDER than it has to. A huge amount older, many,many times older. Why it does you have NOT explained.In all this you have, however, forgotten to ask a pertinent question of Eta. Moose has pointed out that we don't know how the age of the sun is determined.