PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Shrinking Sun

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does the Shrinking Sun prove that the earth is not as old as the evolutionist say?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_shrinking_sun.HTM
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:18 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no, because they are the same age.  Earth will just collapse soon.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:06 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the sun shrinks at a rate of 5 feet per hour. this rate has been found to be very constant. therefore, even just millions of years ago (much less billions!) the sun would have been so large that it would have been actually touching the surface of the earth.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:58 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=21
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:55 AM on November 22, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i dont trust skeptics cuz they turn down any evidence...even if it is valid


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 02:30 AM on November 22, 2002 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from admin at 4:18 PM on April 30, 2002 :
Does the Shrinking Sun prove that the earth is not as old as the evolutionist say?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_shrinking_sun.HTM



This is crazy.  What is the inner workings of this model?  How does the sun shrink and still burn nuclear fuel?  Does it burn nuclear fuel?

I know that the rate of nuclear reactions in the sun's core can keep it happy for another 5 billion years.  The nuclear model makes sense.  Even if you don't belive in this, then what is the model do you propose that will support a shrinking sun.  There is none.  Until someone can form a demonstrate a workable model, the shrinking sun model is witchcraft.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:25 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
debategirl88

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The sun will do nothing until the old earth is destroyed to make God's new earth. the Bible says that the sun and moon will turn to blood.


-------
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
 


Posts: 157 | Posted: 5:13 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 'Shrinking Sun' theory was so tentative it never went any further than a meeting abstract.

Why would anyone hold up a document that has never been formally published in the scientific press as proof of anything?

Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998, carried out a detailed study of the solar photospheric radius over a six year time frame, from 1981-1987. Their results imply a constant solar radius, within a measurement error of +/- 37 kilometers (km) over the whole 6 years. If the solar radius were in fact shrinking by 5 feet per hour, that translates into 37 km in about 2.8 years. That would impose a greater than 2-sigma systematic trend on the six year data set, an effect the proverbial blind man could hardly miss.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:29 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the SUN was a Nuclear Reactor - producing Light and Heat from Fusion then TRILLIONS of neutrons would eminate from the SUN and hit the earth constantly..

We find almoust no emission of NEUTRONS entering the earths athmosphere let alone TRILLIONS constantly.

It cannot be a huge COAL reactor as COAL based heat would have burned up by now. It would have only burned for 5000 years or so.

But if the sun SHRINKS then the energy and light can be produced.

But if the SUN shrinks 5 feet per hour then it couldn't have been older than maybe 10-20 thousand years as even 250000 years ago the sun would have been so large that no life could have survived on Earth.

Here is a link

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:52 PM on June 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 8:52 PM on June 23, 2003 :
If the SUN was a Nuclear Reactor - producing Light and Heat from Fusion then TRILLIONS of neutrons would eminate from the SUN and hit the earth constantly..


Which they do, and are monitored.  But the atmosphere is a good shield for neutrons, since you want low-Z material for a neutron shield.


Solar Nuetron Telescope network

We find almoust no emission of NEUTRONS entering the earths athmosphere let alone TRILLIONS constantly.


You certainly won't find them listening to the ICR.  :-)

It cannot be a huge COAL reactor as COAL based heat would have burned up by now. It would have only burned for 5000 years or so.

But if the sun SHRINKS then the energy and light can be produced.

But if the SUN shrinks 5 feet per hour then it couldn't have been older than maybe 10-20 thousand years as even 250000 years ago the sun would have been so large that no life could have survived on Earth.


Mayber you should read AiG's list of arguments creationists SHOULDN'T use.  
   *

     ‘Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years.

     However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicator—nor an old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator, TJ16(3):123–125, 2002 (to be posted).


Answers In Genesis
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:51 PM on June 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the sun is expanding, as it burns up its hyrdrogen fuel (the force of gravity fuses 4 hydrogen atoms to one helium atom + energy) its the basis for the h bomb. but the sun will be to hot in 1 billion years for us to live on earth. 5 billion years boom we need to work on inter-glatic travel ... the clock is ticking
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:59 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm[random]

Oh yeah, like they're a fair and unbiased group. When it gets published in a PEER REVIEW JOURNAL thats when you quote it.

(Edited by admin 8/23/2009 at 07:02 AM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:04 PM on July 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

forgive me if this has been argued, i just saw this and simply had to press "add reply"

"

Junkie
Average user rating: n/a

Rate this post:

the sun shrinks at a rate of 5 feet per hour. this rate has been found to be very constant. therefore, even just millions of years ago (much less billions!) the sun would have been so large that it would have been actually touching the surface of the earth.

"

SURE! So it would have touched the surface of the earth. First of all, assuming this were true, the earth would've burned down millions of years ago and we wouldn't be here. So it can't be true!  (DON'T even bring in the Matrix, PLEASE). Now that leaves assuming it is false. In other words, variable. You know, one day you will take an algebra course in high school and discover to your astonishment that not everything is linear! There are- holy smokes - exponential and logarithmic functions! That curve!

BTW, where did you get the fact, that the sun is shrinking 5 feet a year?

Also...how "constant" has this been shone. Oh, it's been shrinking five feet for the past fifty years. Does that mean something for 2 billion years ago?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:26 PM on September 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how much does the sun shrink every year?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:17 PM on September 22, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which year are you talking about?
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 09:40 AM on September 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 02:30 AM on November 22, 2002 :
i dont trust skeptics cuz they turn down any evidence...even if it is valid



You obviously have absolutely no idea what a skeptic is.

This "evidence" isn't valid, it's put forth by closeminded fundies.

People, the world is 4.5 billion years old, get a grip and get used to it.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:39 AM on October 1, 2003 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bump for Lester.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:45 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The sun isn't shrinking; it fluctuates in size.

Abstract  As a consequence of an astrometry program, conducted since 1975 on a solar astrolabe at the Calern Observatory (Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur), we have obtained a data set of apparent solar diameters which encompasses periods greater than one solar cycle. From a set of more than 5000 visual observations, made by the same observer between 1975 and 1994, the mean value of the semidiameter was measured at 959.42Prime ± 0.01Prime. Also, a set of CCD measurements made with the same instrument between 1989 and 1994 yields the mean value 959.40Prime ± 0.01Prime. Both results obtained by raw measurements are consistent but significantly differ from values obtained by other methods and on other instruments. We discuss some systematic effects that can affect our visual measurements and their precision. Taking account of a zenith distance effect provides for the semi-diameter a mean value closer to the value of the ephemeris. Our observations also reveal deviations around the mean diameter in the royal zones and for high heliographic latitudes; their amplitudes reaching as much as 0.08Prime. Finally, semi-diameter variations appear in our series; their origin is unknown but they may possibly be related to observed variations of magnetic activity or other solar parameters.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t74h5q787655h153/
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:44 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh yeah, like they're a fair and unbiased group.(talking about ICR) When it gets published in a PEER REVIEW JOURNAL thats when you quote it.


Oh yes, that'll make it fair and unbiased - in evolution's favour....
It is considered fair and unbiased - when you're an evolutionist.

As for the rest, there seems to be a lot of conflicting opinion out there. I guess we'll have to settle for whatever gets us to 4,6 billion years, otherwise bang goes our fair and unbiased look at the sun's shrinkage!




(Edited by admin 8/23/2009 at 07:02 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:42 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for the rest, there seems to be a lot of conflicting opinion out there.


Not among astronomers.   The data clearly show that the sun fluctuates in size.

I guess we'll have to settle for whatever gets us to 4,6 billion years, otherwise bang goes our fair and unbiased look at the sun's shrinkage!


Comes down to evidence.  Science has it.  You don't.

High-Precision Measurements of the Solar Diameter and Oblateness by the Solar Disk Sextant (SDS) Experiment

Authors: Egidi, A.1; Caccin, B.; Sofia, S.2; Heaps, W.; Hoegy, W.; Twigg, L.

Source: Solar Physics, Volume 235, Numbers 1-2, May 2006 , pp. 407-418(12)
We reduce and analyze, in a uniform way, all of the data obtained by the Solar Disk Sextant (SDS) experiment, concerning high-precision measurements of the solar radius and oblateness, in the bandwidth 590 {-} 670 nm, made onboard stratospheric balloons during a series of flights carried out in 1992, 1994, 1995, and 1996. The measured radius value appears anti-correlated with the level of solar activity, ranging from about 959.5 to 959.7 arcsec. Its variation from year to year is outside the error range, which is mostly due to a systematic diurnal behavior, particularly evident in the 1996 flight. The oblateness shows an analogous temporal behavior, ranging from about (4.3 to 10.3) × 10−6.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:33 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Have you noticed how much regular science you have to reject in order to support your YEC hypothesis?

Doesn't that tell you something?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:14 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fanatics don't listen to reason, waterboy.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:00 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Straight from Answers In Genesis:

Far Out Claims About Astronomy

The Shrinking Sun

In past years, certain selected data appeared to show a decreasing size for the sun. This suggested that the sun might be powered by gravitational collapse rather than nuclear fusion. Since gravitational collapse is not as efficient as fusion, the sun could not last for billions of years.

There also was an earlier problem with missing neutrinos, which are particles emitted by the solar nuclear fusion process. The neutrino deficit once seemed to support the notion that the sun is shrinking rather than powered entirely by fusion.

However, modern solar telescopes do not detect solar shrinkage. It seems that the original data merely indicated small oscillations or vibrations of the sun. Furthermore, the missing neutrinos now have been accounted for; newer instruments detect precisely the number of neutrinos expected from solar fusion. Although the sun may be undergoing a very small amount of gravity collapse, we can be confident that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, not an inward collapse.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:52 PM on August 24, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.