A young sun - a response

IOW, you've made up your mind and your faith can withstand all assaults of evidence and reality.You haven't made any point, only assertions.You have no idea how much we know about the Sun and how we know.You have claimed that the Sun must appear to be "many, many millions to billions" of years old, with no evidence other than your wish that it be so. Your claim is directly contradicted by the evidence. Your claim is false. No participant in this thread agrees with you.

NO I HAVE NOT - YOU **** ***!!!!!!!!!YES I AM PISSED OFF DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO I WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW IN ONE OF MY CLASSES.FOR THE FINAL ******* TIME - NO NO NO NO NOA STAR DOES NOT - I REPEAT NOT - HAVE TO HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF AGE TO PERFORM AS IT DOES - BUT BUT BUT IT DOES HAVE THAT APPEARANCE OF GREAT AGE.HENCE IT IS BLOODY WELL OLD YOU **** ****.NOW BUGGER OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PSApologies to all except Buzsaw but I have had enough of being accused of misleading or avoiding the issue by someone who couldn't figure his way past a quadratic equation.[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 12-16-2003]

Why is Buz arguing agains the sun being old, anyway? Isn't he an OEC?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

..........and the fantasy/hypothesis of those who think they know what has allegedly made the sun tic for these alleged billions of years. I didn't say it had to be that old, just that it had to be old enough to do what it's doing for us today on earth and look like it looks to us. It all depends on how you interpret what you see. None of us can prove to be absolutely correct on all the nuts n bolts stuff about it. Maybe because those who did the various measuring and determining how to measure all had the same biases. It's all hypothesis, imo. I'll leave it at that and let others discuss the rest.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.

[/qs]Why is Buz arguing agains the sun being old, anyway? Isn't he an OEC?[/qs]I covered that earlier in the thread, Rei. It has to do with the sun being created after the creation of the earth, the sun being created on day four (after the plants). I'm not saying it has to be 6000y like the creatures. Why? Because it was created sometime during day four and not until it was actually created did it and the moon become the measure for days, seasons and years, etc.

Ok, sore looser, I'll leave you be, but don't forget, I didn;t ask for this fight, and I refuse to be made out to be a fool by you. Each reader can decide for themselves.Ned has already given his opinion, so it's not just me. Don't forget that. Have a good evening.
Buz

Your ignorance shines through.I don't think a single person commenting here agrees with you.I took the time to honestly answer you, but I am thinking you just don't understand the basics to even follow the reasoning.Learn to spell!!Your errors are not just typographical errors but seemingly the result of poor education or lack of care. Either way it's an indictment.

IOW, you have no idea and you don't care. A great example of the sterility and meaninglessness of creationism. One could argue that it's many millions. But it's not "many, many millions to billions", as you claimed. It's approximately 0.1% of what we measure the age of the Sun to be, supporting our claim that the Sun doesn't need to look anywhere near as old as it appears to be in order to do its job.

Not knowing what questions to ask.When the responses did not conform to his preconceived notions it was 'shoot the bloody messenger' time.Not everyone is cut out to understand concepts outside of everyday experience. Buzsaw is a great example of someone who has trouble with anything of a scientific nature.It is a foreign subject AND shall forever remain as such.

Buz, you don't actually believe I'm agreeing with you on anything here do you? That is utterly astonding!!

I was referencing this statement:

Buz, the point of this is the apparent age of the sun under two different scenarios. Isn't it?It has taken awhile to clarify what each side is saying about those scenarios. Each side may have had to iterate a bit to get things right. That is a teeny, tiny little nit.What we have arrived at are two different predictions of the two scenarios.Your's has little helium in the sun (and other differences). Your's is wrong.It is now you turn to make iterative corrections to your scenario to fix it. We fixed ours.

quote:

---

Ok, sore looser, I'll leave you be, but don't forget, I didn;t ask for this fight, and I refuse to be made out to be a fool by you.
  —buzsaw

---

No buzy, it is you who is ignorant and a fool. You have lost the argument several times over, you are simply too blinded by your theology to realise it. It is a pity that someone who actually knows a significant amount about the topic such as eta has wasted some much time and effort on you. He has obviously not dealt with creationists before and has not learnt that they cannot be persuaded by evidence and logic if it threatens their closely held personal beliefs. You have demonstrated this repeatedly.As buzzy prefers to hold his fantasies rather than embrace reality, I suggest that further discussion with him is pointless.

Unlike my counterparts, I debated forthrightly, fairly and squarely from a creationist view. Call it fantasy or whatever you wish, but isn't that what this board is about? Spell creationist......C R E A T I O N I S T. That means we believe a creator created things in tact with appearance of age. If you people can't handle that and accept our input here on that basis, it is you who have the problem. You need to convince Percy to reinvest his money into an exclusive evolution discussion. Or you can go to some forum where you don't don't have to deal with fantasy.People here wring their hands because creos don't show up or stay long and then when we do show we get these demeaning insults and word games such as has been the case here. We are often expected to debate on EVO terms, all the while agreeing with EVO HYPOTHESIS. When we insist on arguing on our own hypothesis, we're treated like ignoramuses. To be an accepted creo here one must often bow to the whims and demands of our counterparts such as the ones I've encountered on this thread. If you want to dialogue with Mr buz, expect Mr buz to debate on the basis of the supernatural as creos are suppose to do. Otherwise, stick to engaging creos who are willing to dance with you to your secularistic tune.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-17-2003]

Ah - so you finally state your position. Why did he create with this appearance since it isn't necessary for the Sun to function? My point all along.