Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A young sun - a response
JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 226 of 308 (73123)
12-15-2003 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 7:18 PM


Re: Buzsaw
That's just another way of saying God couldn't have created anything like man, beast earth, sun, stars, rocks etc, anything already intact rather than having to evolve, without lying.
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.
So, you're saying God was also lying when/if he created Adam as an adult rather than a babe
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 7:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 227 of 308 (73128)
12-15-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 7:28 PM


So what would he have built into a fully existing functional sun to make it look old which would be un-necessary??
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.
We've already established that it would APPEAR TO BE many millions of years old from it's beginning JUST TO EXIST AS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STAR, have we not?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 7:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 228 of 308 (73131)
12-15-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 7:28 PM


So what would he have built into a fully existing functional sun to make it look old which would be un-necessary?? So as to not confuse, let's begin with the existence of it as a bright sun warming the earth. We've already established that it would APPEAR TO BE many millions of years old from it's beginning JUST TO EXIST AS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STAR, have we not?
Several things, not necessary for it to work WOULD show it's age as greater than 6000 years, these are:
Lithium abundance, Beryllium abundance, C,N,O abundances. Depth of the Convection zone. Sound speed profile with depth. Maybe measures of the quadrupole moment.
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-15-2003]
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 7:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 229 of 308 (73169)
12-15-2003 9:39 PM


I don't really want to jump in on this thread, but I do want to point out one thing.
Buz is equating the creation of the sun with apparent age to the creating of Adam with apparent age.
IF the only criteria that Adam had to fulfill was, for example, the ability to procreate...the oldest he would have had to appear would be puberty age. The arguments about the sun's appearance would be like saying Adam was created at the age of 100 when to fulfill the requirements he would only have to be created at puberty.
(I'll go back to my corner now)
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 308 (73201)
12-15-2003 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Abshalom
12-15-2003 7:44 PM


My Hebrew - English interlinear has the nearest Hebrew - English equivalent as "greater luminary" ruling the day and the "lesser luminary" ruling the night, both of which obviously refer to the sun and the moon. All the translators I am aware of have had not problem figuring this out. It's a no brainer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Abshalom, posted 12-15-2003 7:44 PM Abshalom has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 308 (73206)
12-15-2003 11:04 PM


I REPEAT TO ETA, AND TO THE REST OF YOU DESPERATE PEOPLE, STRAINING AT GNATS AND SWALLOWING CAMELS:
We've already established that it would APPEAR TO BE many millions of years old from it's beginning JUST TO EXIST AS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STAR, have we not?
Please address this important fact.

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-15-2003 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 233 by wj, posted 12-16-2003 12:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 235 by JonF, posted 12-16-2003 8:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 232 of 308 (73216)
12-15-2003 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 11:04 PM


But how does this relate to your earlier question?
Yes by accepted theory it would take millions of years BUT you earlier were saying if it was created 'as is'. And I said then it would be obviously young from the indicators I mentioned a couple of posts back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 308 (73231)
12-16-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 11:04 PM


Buzsaw, you seem to have gone to pains to have others concede that the sun would need to appear to be a couple of million years old (when created instantaneously) for it to produce sufficient radiation output to support the biological entities which were to be created in the following days(?). However you completely ignore the fact that the sun displays features that are consistent with it being 4.5 billion years old, not just a couple of million years old. Why would the sun show features inconsistent with its real age if they are not necessary to serve the purpose of irradiating the earth and its biosphere?
Do you have your own personal interpretation of some religious text which indicates that the sun is millions of years old rather than 4.5 billion years old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 2:46 AM wj has not replied
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 9:29 AM wj has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 234 of 308 (73252)
12-16-2003 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by wj
12-16-2003 12:14 AM


Yea, WJ I guess that's what I've been trying to understand from Buzsaw. We all agreed with what he is asking days and days ago. But he keeps on going on about it without comeing to whatever conclusion he wants.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by wj, posted 12-16-2003 12:14 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2003 1:00 PM NosyNed has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 235 of 308 (73299)
12-16-2003 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Buzsaw
12-15-2003 11:04 PM


quote:
We've already established that it would APPEAR TO BE many millions of years old from it's beginning JUST TO EXIST AS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL STAR, have we not?
Please address this important fact.
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.
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?
Please address this important question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2003 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 236 of 308 (73303)
12-16-2003 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by wj
12-16-2003 12:14 AM


to support the biological entities which were to be created in the following days(?).
Don't forget the previous day, too - all those grasses and herbs predate the Genesis sun, ya know...
And Eta, can we add isotopes like aluminum-26 to your list? We have its daughter isotope out in the solar nebula (as meteorites, today) but none of it at all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by wj, posted 12-16-2003 12:14 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-16-2003 9:43 AM Coragyps has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 237 of 308 (73306)
12-16-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coragyps
12-16-2003 9:29 AM


Well there is no Al 26 in the Sun. But this really doesn't help the argument as someone could claim that the Sun was created 6000 years ago without any to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 9:29 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 11:16 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 238 of 308 (73330)
12-16-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Eta_Carinae
12-16-2003 9:43 AM


Helium?
LOL, Eta, I think you're having trouble wrapping your head around this silly game. Someone can "claim" anything. However, if they keep going down that path you end up with God the utterly mysterious or God the prankster. In either case all bets are off. We don't know what he's up to.
In addition, you step outside of creation science and into purely religious argument. Not one I find interesting nor is it very useful to the political side of the movement since it doesn't get them into schools.
So let's keep playing with this while we wait for Buz to explain what the heck he is getting at. Buzsaw is NOT a YEC by the way which makes this very mysterious to me.
How about a biggy? There is helium in the sun! There would not be anymore than a little bit (comparitively, just that created since "creation" from the fusion process -- not a lot in 6,000 years I would think) if it was created to supply energy to the earth. It gets it's helium from the big bang's nucleosynthesis doesn't it? That isn't necessary for it to operate well is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-16-2003 9:43 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-16-2003 11:39 AM NosyNed has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 239 of 308 (73336)
12-16-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by NosyNed
12-16-2003 11:16 AM


Re: Helium?
No you don't need Helium initially.
Actually before Hydrogen burning begins the protostar will undergo Deuterium burning at approx. 1,000,000 K. This produces Helium 3 anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 11:16 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 2:17 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 308 (73352)
12-16-2003 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by NosyNed
12-16-2003 2:46 AM


Yea, WJ I guess that's what I've been trying to understand from Buzsaw. We all agreed with what he is asking days and days ago. But he keeps on going on about it without comeing to whatever conclusion he wants.
Ned, there's only one reason this thread's been going on and on about the age appearance theme. That reason is the town physicist who likes to play these chesslike word games and when I get him in checkmate you people keep helping him move the players around, necessitating for me to rearrange them back to checkmate. For example, here's some posting history examples of Eta's statements which have been necessitating the length and absurdity of this debate:
Eta: Message 218: If the Sun was created 6000 years ago and (in your words) looked like the Sun and performed as we need it to perform then I would CALCULATE it's age as say a few thousand years old.
Eta: Message 211: Well a suddenly created Sun - created so it appears visually as we see it - would have an age calculated to be less than say a year or two.
Eta: Message 180: But my whole point is THAT IT DOESN'T have to look old to do it's job.
Eta: Message 152: THE SUN TO FUNCTION AS IT DOES, DOES NOT NEED AN APPEARANCE OF GREAT AGE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOUR GOD CREATED IT 7000 YEARS AGO HE NEEDLESSLY AS PART OF THAT CREATION ADDED AN AGING.
......And statements like this of JonF:
JonF Message 216: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.
1. This all began with my plain and factual statement that a created sun would show appearance of age. As to whose hypothesis of how old it would appear was not what I intended to get into, as that's just what it all is, imo, since nobody's actually been there and seen inside of it so as to test exactly what's there. All I'm sayng is it's gotta look scores of millions if not billions of years old to scientists to look like what we see up there today.
2. Nobody has specifically defined exactly what it is that a sun appearing and doing what our sun is looking like and doing would not need if the sun we are looking at were a created sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 2:46 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-16-2003 1:53 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 243 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 2:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024