Welcome, frodnum. The others have pointed out the problems of PRATTs and the fact that you just listed the same old tired claims that have been around for over twenty years and that were refuted almost immediately after they were first published but continue to be hawked by the creationist community and have been repeated refuted every time some new creationist posts them, thinking they are some exciting new evidence instead of the ancient dreck that they really are. These new creationists believe, as they have been told, that "evolutionists" cannot answer these "evidences" and they expect this "new evidence" to "blow you evolutionists away" (as I had personally witnessed a young creationist proclaim just before presenting Setterfield's old and long refuted decay-of-the-speed-of-light claim, whereupon it was the creationist who was blown away when half the audience broke into uncontrollable laughter). So the only real response that they elicit when they post PRATTs is derisive laughter. Or pity. Or annoyance that they're wasting bandwidth with such crap.
Study. Research. Learn. And
think! It takes time and it takes work, but it is worthwhile. And utterly necessary for the sake of Truth.
Now, you claim about yourself:
I have done plenty of research in this field and ... .
Please tell us about this research that you have done. To start with, since every researcher keeps track of the sources that he has researched, you can start by telling us the source of your PRATTs. In particular, what is your source for that first claim?:
During my lifetime their has been thousands of coronal mass ejections
shooting trillions of tons of gas from the sun into space. Compute that into billions of years as the evolutionists say the age of the sun is, would of made the sun so large that life on earth would not of been possible until recently.
You see, basing the "shrinking sun" claim on coronal mass ejections is somewhat new to me, so I would be curious to see where that claim came from and where
they in turn got it from. The classic claim is to say the sun's shrinking is due to its still being in that stage of formation where it's contracting and that much of the sun's energy is due to this Helmholtz gravitational collapse -- this is indeed what scientists say happens during the early formation of a star, though the sun is long past that stage and all of its energy is from nuclear fusion reactions in its core. We used to have a problem in that we only detected about half the neutrinos that we would expect, but we were looking for the wrong kind of neutrinos and now we find all that we would expect. The "shrinking sun" claim would use that "missing neutrino problem" to argue for most of the energy coming from gravitational collapse, but now even Answers in Genesis warns fellow creationists from using the "missing neutrino" claim.
The infamous Kent Hovind (has he actually been officially convicted yet or is his trial still in progress?) repeated the "shrinking sun" claim and added his own argument in support. At least I think that he originated it; I tried repeatedly to get him to reveal his source for the claim and he abjected refused -- any half-way decent researcher would have no reluctance in revealing his source (hint, hint, hint). His claim is that as it "burns its fuel", the sun loses mass at the rate of 5 million tons every second and that this mass loss explains the sun's shrinking, but also it would mean that the ancient sun would be so massive that it would have sucked the earth in.
As Coragyps already pointed out to you, when we do the actual math we find that the mass thus lost in 5 billion years would only amount to a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. By my own calculations, five billion years ago the sun's mass would have been 1.00037 times its current mass and, since gravity is directly proportional to mass, its gravity would have been 1.00037 times its current gravity. By my understanding, this would have "sucked the earth in" by a whopping 40,000 to 60,000 miles (an astronomer's web site gives about the same figures); compare that to the three million miles that the earth's distance from the sun varies during the year.
Ironically, while Hovind's trying to support the "shrinking sun" claim, including the sun getting its energy from gravitational collapse, his "5 million tons every second" mass loss rate negates that claim. Hovind got it from a textbook, but apparently never bothered to research where it came from. Take the sun's total energy output per second, apply Einstein's E=mc
2, and you get about 5 million tons of mass being converted to energy to produce that energy. Therefore, if that rate applies, then the totality of the sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion and absolutely none by gravitational collapse; IOW, Hovind's claimed rate is based squarely on the sun
not shrinking.
Also ironic is that one of Hovind's replies indicated that he thought that the sun was "burning its fuel" on the surface via some form of combustion. This was supported by a letter from him described on a creationist-friendly site. This is the same guy who repeatedly boasts that he's an expert in math and science because he had taught those subjects in high school for 15 years.
Loss due to solar wind (AKA coronal mass emissions or ejections) is much less than the 5 million tons every second lost due to nuclear fusion. In trying to track down that rate, the highest I found quoted was 1.4 million tons per second (I think that was offered on an astronomy or astrophysics newsgroup), though other sources said 100,000 tons and even down to 600 pounds. Even the highest figure cited is much less than the rate of mass loss due to nuclear fusion. Factor that 1.4 million ton figure in to the total mass lost and I calculated that the ancient sun would have been about 1.00045 times what it is not, instead of merely 1.00037 times greater.
So please, frodnum, what
was the source of your claim?
™ Version 4.2