A simple question for a complex issue

Ah, but see the second set of defintions I posted.As you know, creationists are not bound by the fetters of rationality.

I only wanted to post to the teacher, perhaps there is a bit of a preacher in me to carry on, and you have every right to believe whatever makes sense too you, however, I will believe what I believe, etc...though I never understood how meaningless the dating methods were until arguing with JonF, GM, and other, even though they likely still believe the dating methods are not meaningless, however, due to the sediments that were deposited above the granite mantle would of dated old even before these sediments came out from the earth, etc...I have one question, why are the rocks still rising up out of the earth by frost, like doesn't frost only go down 4 feet, and rocks are still lifting by the forces of the frost to the earths surface, the farmers plow hitting their sprinkled top, every year recieving a new crop of rocks, to pile alongside the fields, you would think if the earth sediments were deposited millions of years ago, all rocks would of long since have risen to the surface, etc...P.S. I knew the constraint on insects was the exoskeleton, thank God for their exoskeleton, etc...arguing with a geologists is a bit like walking into a brick wall, until you realize their dating methods are meaningless, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-20-2004]

Indeed. And, as if to underscore your point, check out the very next post after yours.

I know it's hopeless ... Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Exactly the opposite of the truth. Because the Sun is producing energy by nuclear means, and because we can detect and measure the precursors and products of those means, it's very easy to prove how young or old the Sun is. It's around 4.5 billion years old.

Point 1) Dating methods work - period!Point 2) I have alluded earlier to your playing gamesPoint 3) Just in case you are genuine - You really are as thick as pigsh|t aren't you. Anything even of a semi-technical nature just soars over your head.I still see you claiming the Sun started 12,000 years ago etc etc. Your problem is you cannot understand even the basics of high school physics so it is all a foreign subject to you. Just carry on leading a simple life ( and my god it must be simple) and quit trolling.

on another thread. He just doesn't understand. I seem to remember trying to explain to him where his info came from, why it was wrong (outdated) but he either understood and was trolling OR he just cannot understand.

This isn't really true, is it, that we have solar evidence that tells us the sun is 4.5 billion years old? Isn't the solar evidence more approximate? I guess I always assumed the 4.5 billion year age was simply implied from the age of the solar system derived through the traditional dating methods of both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial material.--Percy

I think Whatever is sincere and is not a troll. There are guidelines about debating in a fashion that permits discussion to develop along productive lines, and if Whatever is repeating arguments while ignoring rebuttals then please point me in the right direction and I'll do what I can to nudge discussion into productive channels.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I said "around 4.5 billion", and I can twist "around" to mean just about anything. {grin}But we have numerical models (several different ones) of how stars work, and a lot of data to put into the models, and guess what ... they all agree that the Sun is pretty close to 4.5-4.6 billion years old.Of course, the measured data tells us, without any calculations, that a 12,000 year old Sun is right out unless some supernatural being created it with an artificial appearance of age.From The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities: Status of the standard solar model today:

quote:

---

The sun is a huge sphere of ionized gas, mostly hydrogen and helium, with a percent or so of all other elements together mixed in. What is directly observable are the surface conditions, and the total mass and luminosity. These observables, together with the assumption that physics as we know it applies also in the interior, are sufficient to calculate in considerable detail what goes on inside the sun as well. It is not necessary to make any specific assumptions about either the sun's age, or its energy source. ...

​

Solving this system of four differential equations gives the internal state of the sun (or any other star) in terms of pressure, temperature and density, using standard laboratory physics, assuming only that it is shining in a steady state.

​

Going to the next step, with a full-blown stellar-development numerical model, will give additional information concerning the age and composition and internal processes of the star. A very similar set of equations are used, with equilibrium conditions relaxed, and the star is followed through its development from birth to the present day (or further, if so desired), taking into account all known processes and energy sources that may be operative. The Helmholtz contraction energy is taken into account, as are the various possible nuclear processes, whenever the conditions are right for them. ...

​

This process can be used to calculate the age of a star. In the sun's case the result conforms nicely to expectations from radioactive dating of the rest of the solar system (around 4.55 billions of years (Strahler 1987), leading to a predicted age of the sun of 4.563 — 4.576 billions of years (Wasserburg 1995)). Guenther & Demarque (1997) find 4.5 0.1 billions of years for the age of the sun, whereas Brun & Turck-Chieze & Morel (1998) favor an age closer to 4.6 billions of years, as do Dziembowski et al (1998). All three results are nicely consistent with the predictions from standard theories of solar system formation. For other stars the results are less precise, which is natural given our limited knowledge of them; a few examples, together with a description of the dating process, can be found in Ford & Rasio (1998).

---

Eta_Carinae, I explained how because a moon rock dated 4.6 billion years, even agreed the sun was not a star for 4.6 billion years, but our only disagreement appears to be when it became a star 12,000 years ago, or 4.6 billion years. I even became convinced the sun was giving off nucleur energy, which I've always suspected, because of some article in answers in genesis, which said the missing neutrino flavors were found, however the article disagreed with your premise you can determine the age of the sun, said it doesn't prove the sun to be old or young, you never really said much, other than I was wrong, referred me to some other thread, etc...I've explained that the dating methods are inaccurate because of contamination from when they erupted out of the earth, produced an article about dual porosity, showed solutes are in the fountains of the deep, and how by dual porosity said sediments would leach into the basalts, its covered, given the water table, and the great length of time of over 4,000 years since the flood these sediments would of diffused into the basalts, making your dating methods meaningless, not that they are not measuring the contaminants, just that it means nothing, then if you factor in that the granite rocks have excess helium, etc... no one produced a name of any nucleur physicists that disagrees with Humphreys, I thought that interesting, not that it would matter if the sediments erupted out from within the earth, then you have Robert Gentry polonium halo's that only exist in the granites, more evidence of supernatural creation, in that they cannot recreate the halos, to recreate granite by any means known to man, etc...If you all can be so mistaken about the age of the sediments, how can I in good faith believe you've accurately dated the age of the sun, as to when the sun went nucleur, think you had an age, 4.6 billion years for a moon rock, and made a leap of faith, though I'm sure you have some complex Enron like formula, but likely its meaningless, though it probably sounds good, some assumption taken, whatever, etc...you never really said much, etc...P.S. You shouldn't get too bent, about it all, Creationists, believe the sediments erupted out of the earth, contaminating the dating process, its really quite simple, we believe the biblical flood happened and we have our reasons, we interprete the sediments, as evidence, you see the sediments as evidence for evolution, I believe your dating methods are meaningless, you disagree, nothing wrong in agreeing to disagree, etc...

You have made a lot of claims. You have not presented any coherent arguments for or explanations of those claims, you have not presented any EVIDENCE for your claims, and you have not responded to questions and requests for clarification and discussions of those claims. It appears that all you've got is your wish that it be so. Well, reality does not respond to your wishes. Your premise is wrong. We are not so midtaken about the ages of the sediemnts. Your wish that we be wrong is irrelevant.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-19-2004]

Propose for me a scenario in which the reef that makes up El Capitan in the Guadelupe Mountains of West Texas/New Mexico "erupted out of the earth." Include for me, please, the amount of detail you customarily put into your posts. Thanks in advance.

This is really getting good. Indeed. "A Middle Eastern Bronze Age warrior tribe who believed the earth is flat wrote down that the flood happened. That's good enough reason for me to accept it." No, you do not. You interpret the Bible as evidence, and then you distort real data, make up fake data, and go into extremely painful logical contortions to force an "interpretation".

Thanks for the details - I didn't realize such calculations were possible.--Percy

Chiroptera, The Word infers the earth's a sphere, the Lord was carried up into heaven, no place to lay his head, sits on the circle of the earth, etc...
kjv Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.http://www.nazarene.net/enoch/2enoch01-68.htm#Chapter33This book apparently was preserved by Noah, written before Moses, but thought it interesting that it says, if God would turn his face all things would be destroyed, Secrets of Enoch 33:5 and in Revelation it talks about when God from whose face heaven and earth fled away, kjv Revelation 20:11, etc... it makes you wonder after Jesus comes to rule for a thousand years, the secrets of Enoch speaks of the eighth day, where there will be a time of not counting, endless, with neither years, nor months, nor weeks nor days, nor hours, etc...Its really makes you think, its not the bible, but think you actually might enjoy reading about how the sun became a light Enoch chapter 25, seems as if God caused the sun to come forth before the first creation day, if Adoil is the sun and Archas is the earth, Enoch chapter 26 sounds though when God turns his face all things will be destroyed, suppose this will be judgement day, and then the New Jerusalem, where there will be no need for the sun or the moon for light, etc...kjv genesis 21:23 The creationist believe were on the end of the sixth day, that the Lord will return to start the seventh day, and then after the thousand year rule, Satan will be loosed for a season, and soon after God will turn his face and heaven and earth shall pass away kjv Revelation 20:11, etc...P.S. God can not turn his face or all things would be destroyed, he holds the whole world in his hands, and he says heaven and earth shall pass away, but his words will not pass away, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]