A young sun - a response

quote:

---

Buz is simply relaying God's warnings to humanity found in the Good Book. Don't shoot the messenger!

---

Thanks very much Apollyon! May God bless you richly!

Well, Buz you may know a lot about the Bible. I just don't know why that makes you any kind of expert on the physics of the sun.We seem to have arrived at the point where the sun is old or God is playing games with us. I haven't seen a coherent argument against that dicotomy yet.You suggest that we don't know all about the sun. All is, of course, a tall order. However, it appears that the astrophysicists are very successful in their description of the sun (and other stars). You know zip about that and have not yet produced the expert, creationist, physicist that shows what is wrong with that understanding.That leaves us with the choice to be made. What is going on? Sun old, God fibber, sun old, God fibber, which one is it?

Ned, I don't know how to get through to you my point that whatever the scientists and physicists are seeing and claiming is based on a presumption that the earth is old. It looks old to them so they say it's gotta be old. All I'm saying is that what they are seeing, whether old or new MUST LOOK OLD IN ORDER TO FUNCTION SO AS TO SERVE THE EARTH AS IT DOES.Question: When God created the sun on day four and it lit up the world and warmed it as it does today, do you think if a physicist on earth could observe it with the technology we have today, it would look one day old?? How old do you think it would look?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-28-2003]

Buz, if I understand our resident astrophyscist correctly (Eta) then you are wrong. The sun could be made to work with some but *not* all aspects of age.I also don't think (but ask Eta) that all of these determinations do depend in anyway on an assumption that things are old.If you think so will you demonstrate where that enters into the calculations?

quote:

---

Buz, if I understand our resident astrophyscist correctly (Eta) then you are wrong. The sun could be made to work with some but *not* all aspects of age.

---

So from one fork of your tongue you're saying I'm wrong in insisting that there would have to be some appearance of age. Then outa the other fork you're saying it would show some age. Which fork of your tongue should I believe, Ned, me friend????

Are you being deliberatly obtuse? You are not saying that some appearance of age must be there, you are saying that all must be. If that is not what you are doing then get on with answering the question: Is the sun old or God fibbing?If there are any aspects of age that are unnecessary but there then God has done something to make things look old that he did not have to? Why did he do that?If there are aspects of apparent age that had to be there (e.g., the necessity for energy from the fusion core having reached the surface) that's fine. But the others are a problem.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The Sun does not have to appear old to support life on Earth.It looks old because it is old.Earlier on this thread I pointed out that a very young Sun could still provide our energy needs but several things would be different, that we could measure.So if the Sun is young then God made it needlessly appear old. That is deception.

To head off any more funny stuff from Buz. If God created the sun just as He wanted the light to be available on earth *and* he used fusion to power it then the sun would have to be created with the appearance of there haveing been enough time for the energy to reach the surface and radiate to earth. So there would have to be *some* appearances of age.But there would not, if I understand correctly, all the appearances of age.

Eta, three questions:1. what would our sun look like on day one of it's loooooooong journey into existence naturally? It wouldn't light itself, let alone the earth, would it?2. How does this differ on how it would look on day one of it's existence by supernatural creation according to the Bible on day four?3. Which would appear to look older if it were possible to view both from earth, sun # one or sun # 2[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-28-2003]

Eta, has already given you part of the answer to that question, hasn't he? And I have clarified a bit of that above.Why does the sun have so much helium, Buz?

Not so fast, please Ned. I know you'd likely like to skip on, but we'll wait for Eta's answer to my questions. OK?

What do you mean by day one of it's existence?Day one from the start of protostellar collapse?
Day one from start of Deuterium burning?
Day one from start of Hydrogen fusion?
Day one from arriving on the ZAMS?I thought I understood you a day or so ago but now I am not so sure. I don't know if you are moving the goalposts or not.But if you mean that day one it is visually as it appears to us now then I stick by my assertion. I could tell the difference between that Sun at a day old versus a 4.6 billion year old one. In fact I could do that without even taking a solar spectrum or helioseismological data.

quote:

---

What do you mean by day one of it's existence?

---

To clarify/simplify my question, let's say in early stages of it's alleged beginning when it was a spiraling nebula of dust and gas, mostly hydrogen.

Well in that case it looks nothing like the Sun of today. It doesn't collapse overnight. So this has no bearing on your question it seems.

quote:

---

Re: How our Sun holds together
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Brad,
I have not confused Method and Principle. In the case of ICR, their principles define their methods. If their principles are to believe the bible first, no matter what, then they are suspect. That IS a blight to this potato.

---

Ok- you deny that I was correct to say that having a oath or in their case "believe the bible first" is a Principle and NOT a method because in a defintion depending on how the postulates around it are ordered DIFFERENT logic may be developed. It may even happen that the difference enables a reasoning faculativatively IN REVERSE even from which any such said defintion may have been materially signed for- OK That's a strech I dont believe in- but for thin threads okkk I'll deny it if you wont.The question was within a discssion that if I understand the new hireing of Humphreies and his "Starlight and Time" we need some kind of judgement on Eisntein on the AEHTER or not (at least). That I can understand and would be willing to write the defintion in METHOD for that holds to ICR priciples if I knew enough (for instance Wolfram on gravity waves) which physics I do not... But in principle I see this as nothing out the ordinary strangeness of quarks, strings, and inflationary GUTS.But you would have said all this " then they are suspect. that is" by NOT being a supporter. How do you $$KNOW%% that some ICR scientists is not able to seperate principle principally from method if you do not BELIEVE it? I understand that you said just understanding that the BIBLE first is reason for you but I thought we were talking about "them"???? So if the BIBLE is for you how you decided then you ARE a beliver by defition?????Where did I miss something?