Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>
Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>
Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the Sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. Astronomer John Eddy has frankly admitted that the Sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the Sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the sun is 4.5-5 x 10<sup>9</sup> years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}
Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the Sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. John Eddy (mentioned above) has frankly admitted that the Sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the Sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the sun is 4.5-5 x 10<sup>9</sup> years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}
==References==
==References==