From:    Carl Wilson
    To:      Jack Brannan             Msg #108, 93-04-02 20:11:14
    Subject: Re: Helium

     -=> Quoting Jack Brannan to Carl Wilson <=-

     JB> Carl I lost your original message on this, I wanted
     JB> to reply to it.  I have a question for you, you claim
     JB> creationists are always misrepresenting facts (you and
     JB> your fellow evolutionists), why have you done so here.
     JB> No creationist has ever given a figure of 1% per year,
     JB> creationists use the same data you do.

     When I first saw the "Shrinking Sun Theory" some years ago,
     (as told to  me by a creationist on a BBS)  a rate of
     approximately 1% per year was  given.  A book titled, "Our
     Turbulent Sun" was the source of this idea.  In chapter 6,
     "The Shrinking Sun", creationists took statements like the
     following:

     "The amount of apparent shrinkage was extraordinary."

     "If the sun were to continue shrinking at the rate of 2
     seconds or arc per century, it would disappear in 960
     centuries."

     They then used this and similar statements to come up with
     the "Shrinking Sun Theory" to prove a young earth.

     But, for some reason, they didn't see statements like the
     following in the same chapter:

        "No one, least of all Eddy and Boornazian, [the individuals
        doing this research] thought that this [sun disappear in
        96,000 years] was going to happen."

        "The shrinkage was assumed to be taking place in the sun's
        outer layer's, not the entire solar mass.  Were it otherwise,
        [entire mass shrinking] the shrinkage would have produced
        more than 200 times the observed luminosity of the sun!"

    JB> What is the figure given by mainstream science?  No one
    JB> disputes the shrinkage, only the rate and it is given as
    JB> 1% per CENTURY as a high end figure, many think the figure
    JB> is about 1/7th of this.

        Actually, almost everyone disputes the shrinkage.  Most
        astronomers agree, that if anything, the sun is a bit
        larger (about 6%) than it originally was.  There may be
        *temporary* shrinkages, but not a steady, permanent one.
        Even the astronomer [Eddy] that thought that the sun was
        shrinking said the following at the end of the chapter:

        "I now feel that we were probably wrong."

        And, "The Data looked like you could trust it."

    He then goes into a lengthy discussion of how the data
    was corrupted. The chapter closes with this last paragraph:

        "It may be ten years before a long-enough record is compiled
        to see a trend in any of these measurements.  Then we may
        know whether the studies of the past two years showing a
        small decline in solar diameter have been a fascinating
        but futile exercise of attempting to tease too much
        information out of too-imprecise sets of measurements, or
        whether the sun really is TEMPORARILY {caps mine} shrinking.

    So whether the "Shrinking Sun Theory" rate is 1% per year or
    per century, it really doesn't matter.  The whole thing is based
    on quoting a book out of context.  Besides, the creationist that
    told me about this should have had his "facts" straight when he
    told me "1% per year".

    JB> I have a question for you, you claim creationists are
    JB> always misrepresenting facts (you and your fellow
    JB> evolutionists), why have you done so here.

    You were saying?

... Creationists either ignore the facts, or are ignorant of the facts.

    From:    Carl Wilson
    To:      Jack Brannan             Msg #115, 93-04-02 23:37:30
    Subject: Re: HELIUM

    -=> Quoting Jack Brannan to Henry Shaw <=-

    JB> The exact figures given by creationists are supplied by
    JB> data from mainstream science which shows a shrinkage rate
    JB> during the last 100 plus years of 1% per CENTURY, not
    JB> yearly. Creationist literature also says quite plainly
    JB> this figure is contested and may be as low as 1/7 of that
    JB> rate.  Data from the past 400 years has also been
    JB> used (eclipse) to confirm shrinkage.  This study was
    JB> published on Physics Today, which is not a creationist
    JB> journal.
 
    And you still ignore the fact that there is NO evidence of
    constant shrinkage since the formation of the solar system.
    THAT is the key to the SciCre, young earth theory known as the
    "Shrinking Sun Theory".  If you *really* think there is all
    this evidence that the sun's been shrinking at a constant rate
    during its entire lifetime, then read the astronomy books
    yourself and post your findings here.  While the idea that the
    sun may be going through a *cyclic* shrinkage *might* be
    supported by some, you would be very hard pressed to find a
    single astronomer or astrophysicist that would claim a *constant*
    shrinkage since the sun formed. And without the constant
    shrinkage, your "young earth" based on the "Shrinking Sun
    Theory" falls to pieces.

    And I also find it very unlikely that precise measurements of
    the needed accuracy were being performed 400 years ago.  Tycho
    Brahe (1546-1601) was reputed as being able to take the most
    accurate measurements of celestial body positions of any
    astronomer of his day.  He was able to take measurements
    accurate to about 1 minute of arc.  Very good considering.  To
    be able to measure a shrinkage of 1% per century, you would
    have to be able to take measurements showing a change of a few
    *seconds* of arc.  And if the actual shrinkage is really 1/7
    of that, these 16th century astronomers were taking measurements
    that late 19th century astronomers would envy.

... "Scientific Creation":  Just religion in disguise..