pete you have disappointed me twice, you insulted shimrod, inaccurately for no reason I could determine, slightly weakening my case that you have been behaving better than Mr. Shaw.

You also pulled out that saw of God creating the Universe in a way that makes it look as if it appears to be older than 6,000 years.

The accepted wisdom on the formation of ours and most solar systems is that interstellar gas builds up in a swirling vortex in certain areas until gravity collapses this gas into suns and planets, the suns have enough gravity and mass to ignite nuclear fusion. The solar wind (outstreaming radiation from the fusion process) strips the hydrogen and helium from the inner bodies, but is too weak further out to do that to outer planets formed at this time and after a few billion years you have a solar system like ours.


We generally know the relative amounts of elements such as hydrogen and helium. Astrophysicists have done the math on thousands of stars and the math works.   

Think of the sun as an hourglass. Hydrogen converts to helium at a certain rate just as the sand flows through the neck of the hourglass at a certain rate. Does it make sense that an "intelligent designer" would create the hourglass with a third of the sand in the bottom of the glass already? I don't think so.

It is also a little disappointing that you talk about "reasoned" arguments and think you can counter what I have said with "any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati"
The process of science is not to look for the answer that best fits our preformed assumptions. It is the one that best fits the evidence we observe. The most logical assumption is that the ratio of Hydrogen to helium in the sun started out about the same as the ratio of those elements in this part of the universe. The assumption that you and johnathan safati are trying to sell to us is less than elegant. There is 4.5 billion years extra helium in the sun. How do you suppose, if it wasn't from the passage of time, that helium got there? was the specific part of the galaxy unnaturally rich in helium? If it was, then the same think happened with the stars in our neighborhood. Did some sort of "helium specific magnet sweep through out part of the galaxy and remove the excess interstellar helium after the sun was formed? That's less plausible. Did the "intelligent designer" put the extra helium in the sun to "antique" it the way some furniture dealers do? I don't like that idea. It implies that God committed fraud.

I donno pete. I admire your dedication and persistence, and until today, I've admired your grace under criticism. I guess you still are supernaturally patient with Mr. Shaw. But you have lost all credibility in arguing science. Of course I'll try to keep an open mind, If a four day theory of stellar formation comes to the fore and the math works, I promise to revisit this topic with you. If that happens though, we'll talk about how your theory conflicts with Einsteins'.