A young sun - a response

My statements all say basically the same thing.Where is your confusion? I have been consistent. I have answered this!It would not need the various elemental abundances we measure - they are age indicators. It could function without these signs. It would have a differing internal structure to some extent - again it need not have this - again an indicator of age.How much clearer can I get.

To clarify this what is the abundance of helium in the sun? I am assuming it is somewhere in the 25% area (from primordeal abundance in the universe).If it was formed with zero helium (since that isn't necessary) we would now have only the helium formed by 6,000 (or whatever) years of fusion. I presume this would be very much less than 1%.This is a big difference if I'm right.Buzsaw, if I am right, then why is the the helium abundance much more than 25 times what it needs to be?

Eta is confused because you keep asking questions that have already been answered. He's been confused by trying to fit within your assumed viewe of things. That is a "created" sun doesn't need the condensation from a nebula time. Separately from that we have admitted to forgetting the time taken for energy to reach the surface.That was corrected a long time ago. The "no ones been there" argument is silly. It is still possible to make very good measurements about some aspects of the sun. If you disagree with those then explain your reasoning. You're an expert on steller physics now?millions of years -- you can reach that if you include all the necessary history to condensing a star, letting it reach ignition and then waiting for energy to reach the surface. I think we have covered all that and agree with you (and I think Eta does too).Tossing in "if not billions" doesn't get you anywhere. You've got to account for multipling the apparent age of the sun by between 100 and 1,000. You haven't explained that. You are, in fact, wrong. This has been done. Do you want calculations of exact amounts of elemental abundances? Why do you need that kind of detail? If you want your idea demonstrated you'll have to do the work. As noted above there is too much helium in the sun.Eta earlier was talking at his detailed astrophysicists level about other elements. You have to explain all those too of course. You and he seem to misunderstand each other because he is very close to the details of this kind of thing and you're on the other extreme.

Eta, how in tarnation can you blatantly claim you've been consistent in light of the following quotes from you in this thread??
We've all, including you agreed that a fully formed sun as ours would need to be at minimum many millions of years old from birth to function. Correct??So Eta, do you still hold to the your cited quotes here, or are you simply sweeping them under the proverbial rug in claiming you've been consistent?? Fair warning this round.............CHECKMATE!!------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-16-2003]

I, for one, think that Eta did forget to include a think or two in the appearance of age estimate. I have, myself, given you that point.I think Eta has too. Now SO WHAT!???The sun has to appear to be up to some millions of year old. You have that point.However, it is constructed as if billions of years and formed of material that the big bang has been determined to produce.Your turn ----- Why?

Yah Ned, this is your assumption or hypothesis, as is the way the universe was and looked scores of millions to billions of years ago and the primordial state of things in it.I've consistently argued that any fully formed star MUST at least have enough age to call it having the appearance of age which has been the case all through this thread. As I've documented twice, Eta has flat out denied this in several of his posts. That is what's driven this thread page after page.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

Well, my assumption and hypothesis is that our sun was created on day four of creation looking like what scientists would assume/appear to be very, very old based on their methods of calculation.

---

Why do you make the claim of God creating an old looking sun? You are assuming the Genesis story is correct without evidence and then bending the evidence to your own unsupported assumptions. You believe the sun was created looking old because it fits your theory, period. Any other proof that the sun was created looking old? Why should we take your word on it?

So he has to have you say so? He's not man enough to admit it himself, choosing rather to go on and on tiptoing in the tulips? I'm sure he's a very qualified physicist, but I'll not allow him to make this creo look like I've got stupid written all over me, just because I lack his academic credentials.

Where've you been these 17 pages, Loudmouth?? I've gone over all that adnausium with these other people. I'm simply agreeng with the phisicists and scientists, THAT A FULLY FUNCTIONING STAR MUST HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than 6000 years, likely many, many millions to billions. H E L L O!!

Sorry man, I didn't feel like going through 17 pages. Laziness has been the MO lately, hehe. I might try and peruse and comment later.

No, Buzsaw, you are simply wrong. There is not need for more than a smidgen of helium in a 6,000 year old sun. The helium does not have to be there.Cosomologists and physicists have a reason for the helium. You do NOT.

I've made my point. As for this hypothesis and that hypothesis in determining what's inside of this star, nearly a hundred million miles removed, neither the physist nor all the other wise men can tell for sure, so I'll leave it that it MUST have the appearance of age, contrary to what so many have been trying to deny in creo-evo discussions and debates in and out of academia classrooms.

No, you are making that up. The physicists and scientists agree that a fully functioning sun must have an appearance of being older than 6000 years, likely a few millions and certainly not billions, and there is no known reason why it should appear to be billions of years old. "...Many, many millions to billions" is only your fantasy; nobody agrees with that.You're still ducking the question I asked in message 226: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?

Ok, Loudmouth. Peace, and my apologies for being curt about it with you. This debate has gotten me a bit riled.

Buz: Get dressed up as one of Santa's elves. Go to the mall. Buy a helium-filled balloon. Enhale the contents of the baloon and speak to the kids in the sit-on-santa's-lap line. Giggle with their moms and dads. Get gassed on Starbuck's. Enjoy the evening. Peace.