Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A young sun - a response
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 308 (73737)
12-17-2003 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by wj
12-17-2003 8:45 AM


Re: OK I have had enough cocksucker
You have lost the argument several times over
Wi, if you would care to take the time to cut and paste statements of mine you think I've lost the debate on, I'd be willing to address them. Where were you when I posted them, if indeed your allegations are valid? Or do you prefer to take these bogus pot shots into the air after all's said and done?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by wj, posted 12-17-2003 8:45 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 2:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 272 of 308 (73759)
12-17-2003 12:17 PM


Fable
Reading about the discussion in here concerning the age and appearance of the sun I decided to write a fable for kids that explains a creationist and an evolutionist points of view.
Characters:
Sun=milkshake
God=as himself
fulano= creationist
sutano= evolutionist
On a certain day D(unknown variable) and a certain time T (another unknown)God decided to create a milk shake for humans. He took the ice cream, the milk, and the cinnamon put it in a blender and created it. he then puts it in the refrigerator. Three days later Fulano and Sutano find it. Sutano says "look fulano. Millions of years and under the right circumstances made the milk and everything else come together tomake this shake. It looks old. The tests on the ice cream says the ice cream had seven days, the milk was four days old and the cinnamon three months. Not to mention the time that passed before the elements themselves were created individually". Fulano responds "Dont get excited man. God left a note(Bible) here that says he made it three days ago." "Nah how do you know that God wrote it?" "Because it says here he did so" "God is a trickster. This shake looks much older than that and the evidence points that way" " the problem here is that you dont believe in god and thats why you cant accept that this was created three days ago even if it looks older". The debate continued till the end of time.
The end.
The problem is that evolutionist dont believe in the spiritual world simply because you cannot explain it with physics,calculus, etc. I recomend the movie Gothika. The protagonist considered herself as a scientific woman and did not beleived in anything spiritual. Everything for her was just simply mind hallusinations until she entered the spiritual world herself and found out no science law can explain that unknown dimension. This movie is an accurate description of what christians try to explain as the spiritual world the only difference is that the real spiritual world is a bit different than the one portrayed in the movie.
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 12:26 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 274 by Coragyps, posted 12-17-2003 12:38 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 279 by docpotato, posted 12-17-2003 2:04 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 2:14 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

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


Message 273 of 308 (73760)
12-17-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:17 PM


A couple of quick point:
Well I see your point BUT the problem is that Creation Scientists (and their supporters) try to explain their Creation myth with science.
Then they are on our domain and so should expect scientific nonsense to be treated as such.
If they stuck to 'God did it by miracle' and leave it at that - then these scientific arguments wouldn't occur.
Of course the argument would shift to philosophy/metaphysics because many would hold that miracles and the like is just a 'fairy tale' to explain ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:46 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

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


Message 274 of 308 (73763)
12-17-2003 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:17 PM


Re: Fable
This shake looks much older than that and the evidence points that way" " the problem here is that you dont believe in god and thats why you cant accept that this was created three days ago even if it looks older".
Belief in god(s) has nothing to do with the evidence all pointing to a greater age for the sun and the milkshake than some book of stories allows for. I'm willing to entertain the idea that some supernatural being might have created the sun, but it sure wasn't done in the way that the book of Genesis says, unless the creator deliberately set out to mislead.
This thread probably does need to die, anyway. We've all beaten this to death already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 275 of 308 (73767)
12-17-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Eta_Carinae
12-17-2003 12:26 PM


Re: A couple of quick point:
"Well I see your point BUT the problem is that Creation Scientists (and their supporters) try to explain their Creation myth with science."
Creation Myth? That depends only on which side of the boat youre in
Science? As a christian that knows a bit of how the spiritual world works I can tell you that the thing you call science will appear like the a complete myth when you experience the spiritual world. Creationists study both science and the spiritual world and that is why the creationist theory exists. Evolutionist dont care about the spiritual world so they cant talk about it or no nothing about it. Thats why they take creationism as a whack. The mysteries of this universe can only be explained through a personal relationship with God. A god that can create anything from nothing
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 12:26 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 2:07 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 276 of 308 (73770)
12-17-2003 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Coragyps
12-17-2003 12:38 PM


Re: Fable
whats misleading about creating the sun just as it is now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Coragyps, posted 12-17-2003 12:38 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 12-17-2003 1:14 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 278 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 1:54 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 308 (73777)
12-17-2003 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:48 PM


Re: Fable
Hey JL, thanks for the supportive input. I like your milk shake analogy, but I see Eta has already begun his usual word/spin job on it and as usual confusing your position with generalizations. Careful about refuting him. He blows up in your face. He belongs in his classroom where they can't talk back. LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:48 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

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


Message 278 of 308 (73784)
12-17-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:48 PM


Reply
No problem 'creating just as it is now' except for the fact WHY create it with an appearance of age? It does not need that appearance for it to function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:48 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 279 of 308 (73789)
12-17-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:17 PM


ah fables!
The two characters continue arguing until finally Sutano proposes the idea that their OLDER BROTHER named Godato was writing the note but passed out before he could finish signing his name. Sutano shows Fulano the passed out body and several examples of handwriting that match up with the note revealing that the evidence does seem to indicate that Godato was the one who wrote the note. He even shows some dried milk on Godato's face and some ice cream under his fingernails. Then, in a rage of fury, Fulano cries that Sutano is wrong and that god wrote the note becuase it said God wrote it and then stabs Sutano with a butcher knife for not respecting the almighty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

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


Message 280 of 308 (73791)
12-17-2003 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:46 PM


Appearances
Jazz, Buz Do we agree that the central point of this thread is the age that the sun appears to be?
Creationists study both science and the spiritual world and that is why the creationist theory exists.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:46 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 12-17-2003 2:41 PM NosyNed has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 281 of 308 (73792)
12-17-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Buzsaw
12-17-2003 10:30 AM


Buz ducks issues and ignores refutations
if you would care to take the time to cut and paste statements of mine you think I've lost the debate on, I'd be willing to address them
OK. We've agreed with you that a suddenly created sun would have to appear with some "implanted age". However, it would not need to have anything near the observed age, and you've been dancing and ducking the real issue for pages. Why would a creator create a universe that looks so terrifically old, by every test we can run, and why do all the different tests agree on the ages of the parts of the universe?
-------
quote:
{buzsaw} 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
I've pointed out that nobody but you has claimed "many, many millions to billions". "Many, many millions to billions" is not required, as demonstrated by the posts throughout the thread, including one of yours:
{buzsaw} I've read where physicists figure the sun to have been around 30 million years old before graduating from a protostar to a full fledged hydrogen burning star. That's many millions, imo, not a few million.
When I pointed out that 30 million is certainly not "many, many millions to billions", you ducked the issue.
-----
quote:
{JonF} 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?
You've ducked this issue many times. You've consistently conflated the 4.5 billion year old sun that we see with the 30 or so million year old sun that is required for life on Earth. The "two differnt age suns" look very different. Or, as Nosy Ned said:
{NosyNed} God choose to add unnecessary extras to make it look old. Then He added a bunch of other things on earth and in the universe to make everything match up.
You ducked that issue as you did when Eta asked:
{Eta_Carinae} 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?
------
quote:
{buzsaw} So what needless stuff did the creator add to the mix so as to allegedly deceive you people??
Helium, Lithium abundance, Beryllium abundance, C,N,O abundances. Depth of the Convection zone. Sound speed profile with depth. Maybe measures of the quadrupole moment. You have ignored the fact the Eta and others havepointed out exactly what unecessary appearance of age the Sun has.
----------------
quote:
{buzsaw} Ok Ned, if our present sun were, say 7000 years of age since created, wouldn't it have to appear as and old sun as it evidently does?
The answer is NO, it would not have to appear anywhere near as old as it does, an appearance of about 0.1% of the age we measure would work just fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 12-17-2003 10:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 2:19 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 282 of 308 (73793)
12-17-2003 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha
12-17-2003 12:17 PM


Re: Fable
That's a really terrible analogy.
A better one would have ten different and independent tests indicating that the milkshake was assembled ten years ago, and six independent tests indicating that the refrigerator was constructed before the milkshake, and twenty independent tests indicating that refrigerator was constructed twenty years ago, and one book written by an unknown author but claiming divine inspiration indicating that the milkshake was created from nothing yesterday and the refrigerator was created form nothing this morning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 12-17-2003 12:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

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


Message 283 of 308 (73796)
12-17-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by JonF
12-17-2003 2:08 PM


Some help with scale
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 2:08 PM JonF has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 308 (73801)
12-17-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NosyNed
12-17-2003 2:07 PM


Re: Appearances
Jazz, Buz Do we agree that the central point of this thread is the age that the sun appears to be?
As for me, my central theme all along has been that the sun, being a star fully formed and emitting the amount of heat our sun is emitting to earth MUST, in fact, to the physicist, appear old, very, very much older than 6000y by reason of the fact that it exists fully formed and able to do what is required for it to do for us today on earth. I'm not counting the time for the light to reach earth, as the implication in the Bible is that after day four it was lighting the earth.
To get drawn into how old discussion about the scientific hypothesis/assumptions of how much helium and so forth is involved beyond that is futile, because nothing has been proven and nobody would be able to know enough provable data to say how much of this or that was going on inside the sun either billions of years ago or 6000 years ago. Science is continually revising, updating and adjusting theories and hypothesis on various subjects as new methods and techniques emerge.
The problem comes when you people act like gods yourself, acting as though you have superhuman telescopic/Xray eyes able to dogmatically insist this or that is how it's got to be and had to be eons ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 2:07 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 2:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 286 by Eta_Carinae, posted 12-17-2003 3:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 285 of 308 (73803)
12-17-2003 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Buzsaw
12-17-2003 2:41 PM


Appearances
Buzsaw writes:
To get drawn into how old discussion about the scientific hypothesis/assumptions of how much helium and so forth is involved beyond that is futile, because nothing has been proven and nobody would be able to know enough provable data to say how much of this or that was going on inside the sun either billions of years ago or 6000 years ago. Science is continually revising, updating and adjusting theories and hypothesis on various subjects as new methods and techniques emerge.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 12-17-2003 2:41 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