Guestion for Evolutionist/ atheists?

Question

Its been studied that, 5 ft of the suns surface burns off every minute, which means that at one time it was bigger, scientists now say that the sun could not be over one million years old, because it would have been so big it would have burn up the earth moon and surrounding planets, also its gravitaional force would've pulled the planets in, destroying them. this is one fact that supports a young universe.. how do atheistic scientists over look this? because it disproves a theory? please give me a serious anwser!
information from Institution of creation science
I'd be glade to give more examples too!

Answer 1

I think you need to provide references for your assertions, because the "5 feet of the sun's surface" burning off every minute makes no sense. The sun is powered by nuclear fusion reactions, not an oil slick. What's more its fuel is turning hydrogen into helium, which can power things for billions of years. I'm not a physicist, and I doubt you are either, but my rudimentary knowledge indicates what you're saying make zero sense. I suggest you take this to http://talkorigins.org where they can address the science. Most of us here are humanities majors. We're hardly the experts on astrophysics needed to address the nuances of this question.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:zh2Gg_tPidcJ:www.aanda.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_base_ora%26url%3Darticles/aa/full/2002/30/aa2598/aa2598.right.html%26access%3Dstandard%26Itemid%3D81+%22The+age+of+the+Sun+and+the+relativistic+corrections+in+the+EOS%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

ABSTRACT

We show that the inclusion of special relativistic corrections in the revised OPAL and MHD equations of state has a significant impact on the helioseismic determination of the solar age. Models with relativistic corrections included lead to a reduction of about 0.05-0.08 Gyr with respect to those obtained with the old OPAL or MHD EOS. Our best-fit value is t-seis = (4.57+-0.11) which is in remarkably good agreement with the meteoritic value for the solar age.

"The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS," by A. Bonanno, H. Schlattl, & L. Paternò. Astronomy and Astrophysics 390, 1115-1118 (2002)

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

I'd be interested to see the data that these studies were based on, and how the authors account for the vast amount of contradicotry evidence.

The problem is that the sun doesn't have a limited amount of surface area that slowly burns off like a propane tank. The sun operates through nuclear fusion, as Hydrogen atoms are constantly merging to form Helium, and so on. The sun (and other stars) actually expand and contract a great deal during different phases of their life cycle, depending on the chemical composition and density of the star. It may be that, in the later stages of our sun's lifecycle, the sun will expand into a Red Giant, at which time it will probably consume the earth, or at least burn everything off of it. But since the sun is so young (relatively speaking, still older than 1 million years, probably more like 4 billion years), this has not occurred yet.

So, overall, I don't think the argument holds much weight, especially considering the wealth of conflicting evidence.

Answer 3

That's a good example of pseudo-science being used by creationists.
I asked this question in the astronomy section.
Here's what they told me: Astronomers have figured out that the sun, and other stars, go through expansion and retraction cycles, which are relatively slow and account for a small percentage of a star's mass.
If memory serves me right, they told me this cycle was about 90 years for the sun. So that at the end of a 90 year period, the sun would start to expand again. Creationists just latched on one fact (The actual retraction of the sun) and made an extrapolation that mainstream science does not support.
The advantage evolutionists have is that their theory accords with mainstream science, be it in chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc... When you attack evolution, you're not just putting modern biology in question, but the whole foundation of modern science. If a theory comes along that disagrees with all the other sciences, it is rejected.

Answer 4

Sweetheart, the sun is not the universe. Stars are created and burn out all the time. Even if the SUN being young meant that the UNIVERSE was young, that still wouldn't suggest that an invisible sky deity zapped them both into existence.

Please go back to middle school and learn some basic science.

Answer 5

We don't have all the answers. I don't know if we ever will. Humans used to think bodies were full of air, and that bloodletting can cure disease. They had good reasons to believe that, they were just wrong. Nobody is saying we aren't wrong now, only that with the evidence we have, and the technology available to us, this is the best guess we can come up with. That's what science is about - the discovery, not having all the answers.

One million years is still a lot more than a few thousand, as "young earth" claimants say.

Answer 6

Hilarious. If you add material to a star of our suns mass its gravity increases and it gets smaller. Ask yourself how it's possible that at some point the sun will expand to envelop the inner planets including Earth. And do you realize how long it will take for this to happen? Billions of years. That might give you some idea how long the sun can stay pretty much the way it is.

Answer 7

This is a claim that is made up by Creationists and has no evidence. It is well known that the diameter of the Sun fluctuates. Direct measurements of the solar wind indicate that about one one-hundred-trillionth of the Sun's mass is lost to solar wind per year.

Answer 8

"scientists now say that the sun could not be over one million years old"

They say no such thing. The Sun IS shrinking, but 5ft a second is a ridiculous number. That's greater than the volume of the Earth every second.

Where do you get your information from? If it's from people like Kent Hovind, you should know that these people are compulsive liars and spreaders of disinformation.

Answer 9

Not sure what your source is but you seem to have only part of the science here. Yes, it is true that the sun "burns off" a certain amount but it is also constantly replenished by the mighty nuclear processes within. As such, I'm certain that the rate of decay is probably much less signifcant than your "source" attributes" it to be. This is what happens when you attempt to make snap judgements based upon PARTIAL and INCOMPLETE information.

Answer 10

Oh, so THIS observation by "scientists" is acceptable to you. Tell me, how do you know which scientists to believe? The least reputable ones I suspect. Provide the name of one well known and respected scientist who says the sun could not be over one million years old.