Faint Young Sun Paradox

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

Faint Young Sun Paradox

Postby stcordova » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:05 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolutio ... n_paradox/
IrrationalIrritation and I agreed to me starting a discussion on the Faint Young Sun Paradox. The Faint Young Sun Paradox suggests to the creationists that the fossil record is not that old.

If the fossil record is not that old, then the patterns of similarity and diversity are likely by design, not common descent and transformation by evolution, since there wouldn't be enough time to evolve things from a common ancestor.

It also suggest re-visiting other clocking methods to date the Earth. In principle these clocks could be observed over time to see if they agree with YEC predictions. Granted it may take a few thousand years to see the clocks tick, but in principle, it is a formally testable hypothesis. There may be some clocks that are trackable in far less time. Some YECs have suggested magnetic field studies of the planets, for example...

Astronomer Emeritus at a secular University, who happened to be a YEC, Danny Faulkner wrote:

http://www.icr.org/article/young-faint- ... ar-system/

>Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

>This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes, changes perhaps comparable to the current differences between Venus, Mars, and Earth. According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

The point is, even if we suppose a mechanism like Global Warming by greenhouse gasses or moon warming by moon orbits, everything has to be miraculously fine tuned or else the Earth becomes an ice ball or becomes too hot for life.

The paradox has been claimed and disputed to have been resolved. But even the claims of a solution require miraculous fine tuning. It is a known paradox in the secular world, it is not something the YECs came up with, but rather co-opted from the evolutionists (pun intended).

One objection was given here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolutio ... r/dt8wxvi/

The problem is that it assumes the millions of years of Earth evolution to begin with. That is circular reasoning. Not to mention, Earth evolution with a moon system is also rather a miraculous claim.

So, yes, one might accept evolution of the Earth, the moon, and the fossil record, but ironically it requires statistical miracles.

There is more than just gravity needed to make a functional planet.

I was once an evolutionist, then an OEC. But then I read this book which was argued for solar system evolution. It had the opposite effect on me as it highlighted all the unusual events need to evolve a solar system along with LOTS of anomalies. After reading it, I made me doubt the Solar System evolved at all, but rather it seemed a miracle created it not too long ago.

I read the book almost 13 years ago. It transformed many of my views, ironically, toward YEC:

https://www.amazon.com/Solar-System-Evo ... 0521675669

This thread isn't the final word. As I said earlier, there are testable hypotheses with the clocks YECs invoke, and maybe someday I can write a review of them and their status.....

Now, are miracles and God possible. I suggested, based purely on physics, particularly Quantum Mechanics, that secular literature says the God hypothesis is one solution to the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics:

Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Return to Creation Science