A young sun - a response

I don't think ICR's staff are out to deceive anyone into believing their cosmology. They retracted their initial position on the Paluxy tracks that resembled human footprints, and no doubt will get around to acknowledging the findings that have rendered that one particular argument against an ancient sun obsolete as well. Though I respect ICR, I actually prefer a competing creation science organization, Answers in Genesis, who have published on their website articles that concede the neutrino argument to those who proposed that our sun is powered primarily by fusion; read the editor's note at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1187.asp, then read http://www.answersingenesis.org/...faq/dont_use.asp#neutrino for elaboration. Volume 16, issue 3, of AIG's Technical Journal will eventually post online Robert Newton's paper, "'Missing’ neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator," as well.
I just joined this forum, so if anyone else in this vast messageboard reservoir has already mentioned AIG's relevant articles, then I apologize for the redundancy.

Sidelined, Answers in Genesis does not "operate only through snail mail"; you can access their online feedback form at http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/feedback.asp and review their posted feedback archives at http://www.answersingenesis.org/...Area/feedback/archive.asp.
You posted only one of the three possible explanations that chemist Russel Grigg outlined at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/243.asp. Regardless of whether the other two answers satisfied you, it is your right to find the miracle of Joshua's long day less than impressive if it involved prolonged localized light refraction. That doesn't mean that the effect had no bearing on the context of the event, however. The possible means through which God enacted that miracle is what you obviously find less than spectacular, though Griggs in that excerpt does answer your question regarding why no other representative of any nation on Earth mentioned it. It seems plausible to me. Author Larry Richards, who I believe is an old-Earth creationist, notes in his book, "Every Miracle and Wonder in the Bible," that what he finds truly noteworthy about that incident is that God, rather than informing humans that a miracle will take place (his standard protocol), actually "heeded the voice of man" by providing the miracle for which Joshua asked. Another point of Mr. Richards' that's of relevance to your assessment of Griggs' first answer bears notice: "We're sometimes told that God has gone out of the miracle business. Certainly the kind of miracles that God performed in the Exodus age have not been repeated. But there are private as well as public miracles." Regardless of the mechanism God used, "the prolongation of daylight was a miracle."
By the way, astronomer Danny Faulkner has a 1998 article published on ICR's website (Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research) that grants, despite any lingering "theoretical and observational questions," that fusion powers our sun as well as "most stars." This was two years after Keith Davies' paper which Rei criticized when he started this thread. This seems to me akin to highlighting, say, an older paper in ICR's archives that exhibited exuberance over possible evidence on the Paluxy riverbed of dinosaur and human coexistence and representing that as ICR's current position despite ICR's retraction of such more recently.