A young sun - a response

I must say on a simple inspection I thought that the use of papers from 1976 questionable. In any developing field many 20 year old papers are going to be seriously out of date.And you certainly wouldn't get that essay published now - the "missing neutrinos" problem has been solved - a result that was widely publicised. Davies doesn't even mention the solution as a possibility although I am sure that it was proposed and I beleive that it was under active investigation even at the time of writing.

I have to agree - I would say that the 1976 sources are relatively obscure and that good scholarship would require Davies to confirm that what they say was still the case.And following the first few links we find this :
The Missing Solar Neutrinos Note that it refers to an article written no more than a month later (July '96 as opposed to June '96) and refers to the very explanation confirmed in 2001.

If course in this case the "appearance of age" argument assumes that God had to set up a planetary system with a sun as we see it rather than something radically different.And since Genesis 1 has the day/night cycle set up on the first day and only credits the sun with being a light in the sky, it would seem that the cosmology underlying Genesis 1 *is* radically different.

The site you gave has the Sun emitting 2 x 10^38 neutrinos per second.6 billion humans * 340 million netrinos per day is ~2 * 10^18.So by that reckoning every second the sun emits 100 billion billion times as many neutrinos as the human population does in a day.