It is a little known fact that scientists who argue that the paleontological record of life is hundreds of millions of years old, when confronted with astrophysical facts, must eventually rely heavily on the hypothesis of finely tuned, large scale global warming. The problem is known as the Faith Young Sun Paradox. A few claim they have solved the paradox, but many remain skeptical of the solutions. But one fact remains, it is an acknowledged scientific paradox. And beyond this paradox, the question of Solar System evolution on the whole has some theological implications.
Astrophysicists concluded that when the sun was young, it was not as bright as it is now. As the sun ages it creates more and more heat, eventually incinerating the Earth before the sun eventually burns out. This is due to the change in products and reactants in the nuclear fusion process that powers the sun. This nuclear evolution of the sun will drive the evolution of the solar system, unless Jesus returns…
As a brief aside, my favorite agnostic/atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, made this observation that mentioned the evolution of the solar system:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief…all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
Ironically Russell’s words inspired my re-acceptance of Christianity after I nearly left the faith in 2001-2003. There seemed little ultimate personal benefit over infinite timescales if there were no God. If I were to find personal benefit on infinite timescales, it would have to be something God himself provided, and thus from that time forward I sought to find evidence to support creation, Noah’s flood, and the historicity of the gospels.
To that end, any anomaly that challenges evolutionary theory caught my attention. One of them was the Faith Young Sun Paradox.
The faint young Sun paradox describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch. The issue was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. Explanations of this paradox have taken into account greenhouse effects, astrophysical influences, or a combination of the two.
The unresolved question is how a climate suitable for life was maintained on Earth over the long timescale despite the variable solar output and wide range of terrestrial conditions.[2]
If the Earth were an ice ball, there would be no Cambrian explosion. If the Earth were an ice ball, the shiny white ice ball Earth would likely reflect sunlight back into space and keep it an ice ball to this day. To solve the problem of how the Earth did not remain frozen during the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian, advocates of the billion-year-old fossil record invoke global warming!
Not only are there serious empirical and theoretical problems to solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, but even assuming there is a solution to the paradox through global warming, it would be nothing short of miraculous.
The sun’s heat output is constantly increasing over time, and the necessary greenhouse effect would have to be finely tuned to spontaneously diminish itself to keep the Earth from incinerating as the sun got hotter. So this glorious global warming must walk a tight rope of fine tuning with no intelligent direction to prevent the Earth from either turning into an ice ball or becoming an incinerator.
Emeritus professor of Astronomy, University North Carolina, Danny Faulkner:
For instance, the current makeup of Earth’s atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere in concert with the Sun. One could call this the Goldilocks syndrome, an obvious comparison to the children’s tale of the three bears.
….
The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere’s evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.Of course, there is a third possibility. Perhaps the Earth/Sun system is not billions of years old…
So even assuming the glories of global warming solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it would do so in a way that is indistinguishable from a miracle. Like so many things, the Faint Young Sun Paradox adds to the view that we live on a privileged planet in a privileged universe. At some point privileged observations are statistically indistinguishable from miracles.
Only if zero counts as “some”.
This winning hand vs. all winning hands.
Is it an integer?
I assume you accept the Gaskiers and Marinoan glaciations, the latter of which lasted ~ a million years. The suns intensity changes over the course of many billions of years so the effect here would pretty much be nonexistent. On the other hand the rate of fixation of carbon by algae at this point would have been minute compared to the release of methane and CO2 by volcanoes making an eventual greenhouse effect perfectly reasonable.
After reading lots of posts and comments on this site I’ve come to the conclusion there are 2 positions one can take: One can accept the science on the history of earth and life, or one can ignore the science and take a “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” approach which at least is philosophically consistent. But to try to have both; to try the make the scientific evidence fit a literal interpretation of Genesis, forces one into extreme absurdities. It forces one to convince oneself and others of outright lies.
I don’t understand. Your position on the origin of the solar system relies on nothing but sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t science.
I don’t think there was ever a question on whether 0 is an integer. The question was whether it counts as a natural number.
What science? Naturalistic science cannot account for earth or life.
I don’t quite get why someone thinking the earth 6000 years old would have a problem with the sun’s output extrapolated back to a time before it existed.
“The problem is known as the Faith Young Sun Paradox.”
Freudian slip.
Whether the Bible is true or not, one is still confronted with something that looks miraculous (miraculously tuned global warming). So this scientific fact remains, and it is a problem for evolutionary theory in as much as it demonstrably needs a miracle to make it work.
What is considered scientific evidence as it relates to the past changes. The faint young sun paradox is a an accepted scientific paradox that may not have a solution under present assumptions.
Don’t know about those, but I do know a deviation of a few percent in sun output would make the Earth freeze. The Sun was supposedly 30% less brighter!
There is something known as the solar constant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
But that 0.2% fluctuation over relatively short eras is trumped by the much larger deviation over long eras due to the astrophysics of the evolving sun when it was 30% less bright.
The solar “constant” dictates an average temperature for black body radiators like satellites. An orbiting satellite that spins maintains a temperature around room temperature at the present level of the solar “constant” based on the amount of energy it gets at the solar “constant” and physics of black bodies.
When the solar “constant” was much lower, the temperature would be well below freezing.
I’m not saying anything that isn’t in the mainstream literature as far as the paradox. It’s just something ignored, especially by evolutionists. Maybe because it would be disruptive if people really started rethinking the way they view the past.
Personally this only one of many problems with evolutionary theory, but it’s one that deserves much more attention than it gets.
Thanks anyway for your comment.
So you came back strong in the faith because the truth didn’t feel comfortable and personally beneficial on an infinite timescale? Sounds eminently rational… and what a truly humble thing to long for. An infinity of personal satisfaction.
Wow. Just… wow.
How can a quote that contains these words “all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.” – be your favorite, if you ultimately ended up rejecting the whole thing anyway?
Little else needs to be said here, a more convincing demonstration that your approach to this is emotional, rather than factual and scientific, is hardly possible.
And of all the comfortable fables out there, christianity, the particular brand of your surrounding culture, just happened to be the one true faith too? How… predictable.
I don’t if one is making the extrapolation to set up a proof by contradiction.
Like, volcanism. Miraculous. Never happens. Nope, it’s miraculous. How do we know this? You said so.
Pack your bags guys, this one is over. Sandals and prayer mats can be found near the exits.
One of the proof of the irrationality of the square root of two is based on first accepting a false premise in order to show the truth. The false premise is “assume 2 is rational”.
“Assume there is no God, and the solar system ends.” The consequence of this is then the fool and the wise man meet the same end. The achievements of man’s science are trumped and in the end, no better than foolishness. Thus, it stands to reason, if there is a chance of escape from the death of the Solar System and the universe, take it. One has nothing or little to lose by searching for an escape. At least, even if wrong, one can have a lot of fun going on the search. I’ve had a lot of fun looking at the possibilities…
Oh, did you discover it?
Of course not, it’s an actual issue existing due to actual science, and it is addressed by researchers occasionally.
Unlike yourself, who just leaps to “miracle” based on a single phenomenon and against masses of other data.
Nothing you write about it smacks of truth, it’s all tainted with your kind of falsity.
Glen Davidson
For Volcanism to solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it would have to be finely tuned. “Not too much, not too little, but just right” to paraphrase Goldilocks.
I see two giant problems here. First, you assume that personal benefit is a good reason for belief. Second, you assume that belief in god requires biblical literalism. Right out of the gate, your creationism rests on two fallacious assumptions.
Why would this “Faith Young Sun” paradox counter all the evidence for the age of the earth? I think you’ve provided the answer to that: you “sought to find evidence to support creation”, and to that end you chose to ignore everything else. Why should anyone take you seriously?
This isn’t an assumption.
I get what you’re saying, but it isn’t an assumption.
Heck, you’re the one making an assumption. Do you know the mind of God? Suppose there’s a God, do you know what the fuck God intends for humanity and the solar system? No. What does the best evidence we have say? Well, if thermodynamics is anything to go by, solar systems die. Nuclear fuel runs out eventually, the sun swells up, burns away the inner planet and eventually collapses in a giant explosion.
So what’s your solution? To just blindly assumme God will … what? Prevent the sun’s hydrogen supply from running out? Divinely intervene to alter the physical constants so nuclear fusion becomes a perpetual motion machine? Where do you get this shit? How can you take this utter fantasy seriously? How can you avoid choking on conceit?
A supernatural mind, of infinite power and capacity, loves me and will personally intervene to save the planet I live on, the sphere of hydrogen plasma that radiates on it, and my own life, for eternity?
Don’t you feel just a bit like a small child when you have these thoughts?
As there anything that doesn’t fit this criterion? Th universe must be a sushi restaurant because there’s loads of fine tun(ers/as) out there.. /DadJokes.
Right, true, but.. so what? Not that I’m saying volcanoes is what ended the cryogenian (I actually haven’t read anything about it, so don’t take it as a serious hypothesis), my point was merely to say that the idea that something ending a cold period had to be “miraculous” is ridiculous.
Aside from the faint young sun paradox, we know Earth have gone through periods of increased volcanic acitivity, and that this affected climate. And yes, often for the worse at least on shorter timescales, causing large extinction events. Initially much colder, because of all the smoke and aerosols blocking out sunlight, but eventually warmer due to the longer-term persistence of atmospheric CO2. Warm enough to melt ice and snow, but also warm enough to cause large amounts of death. “Tuned”, but maybe not so fine after all.
Btw, volcanos throw up a lot of ash, which may block sunlight and reflect bact to space. That may not solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox as a matter of principle.
It seems we both posted on that very point exactly at the same time 🙂
Strictly speaking, it’s really a paradox for the age of the fossil record, not the age of the Earth, the sun, the solar system and the universe.
As is so typical, you attempt to score a cheap point irrelevant to the actual argument. The fossil record is nearly the same age as the earth, and the evidence we have for the age of the earth overlaps almost completely with that for the age of the fossil record. Further, as a YEC you also reject standard ideas of the ages of the earth, sun, solar system, and universe. You are just avoiding a real discussion here.
And you didn’t respond at all to the main issue of my post, that the fundamental basis of your YEC belief, which you explained in the OP, is fallacious.
And your analysis for this profundity?
Nothing, it’s just your prejudice. Again.
Glen Davidson
Are we still trying to relitigate YEC?
Do you think that there is some sort of meaningful separation between the fossil record, the age of the Earth, the sun, the solar system and the universe?
There isn’t, you’re just grasping for whatever excuse you can to believe the rot that you do.
Glen Davidson
Gee another thread with Sal talking about Sal. What a surprise.
He doesn’t really know anything else (although he doesn’t really know himself, either, in any objective sense).
Write what you know.
Glen Davidson
Can one of our Bayes’ wizards, take all of the old earth evidences, put a confidence on them and come up with a YEC confidence vs OE?
Suppose the sun winked out right now. How long would it take the earth to cool to the point that there was no liquid water anywhere? Bearing in mind that plate tectonics and its radiogenic engine would not just stop, taking as it does virtually no input from the incoming solar radiation in any case.
If you can’t do this calculation, you certainly can’t use this simplistic extrapolation, accounting for solar radiation alone and ignoring everything else.
Additonally, solar mass has been steadily diminishing. This means we are further away now. If you can’t integrate this into your calculations, again you can’t use this simplistic extrapolation to deny what is, after all, greatly in evidence – liquid water, generating a sedimentary record many kilometers thick. Far thicker than could be deposited in any Flood.
stcordova,
Not only – it would be paradoxical for the vast amount of non-fossiliferous sediment also. It’s just that evolution bugs you more.
The Faith Young Sun Paradox appears to be nothing more than a typo. An interesting typo, true, but no paradox involved. Could one of the mods fix the OP?
Because it’s the right thing to do here at TSZ. It’s the way we are supposed to treat each other. If you don’t like it you can always leave.
You mean, “fix the title“, right? The OP is awesome, as is.
😀
Seriously, how does this “Faint Young Sun Paradox” even begin to be a problem for our modern understanding of the fossil record? Just consider that by the time the Cambrian was underway, the sun was not young; it was already 90% of its present age.
James Chapman,
https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309063647/xhtml/images/img00104.jpg
The supposed age of the Earth is 4 billion years. Do we have 4 billion year old fossils? The only case I’ve heard of that is possible 4 billion year old meteorite bacteria.
Once again you quibble about minor “gotcha” points and ignore all the real issues. I said “nearly”. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The oldest clear fossils are 3.5 billion years old, though there are possibilities up to 3.8 billion years, possibly a bit older. Stop quibbling and address at least one of my points.
Something I should mention. The Faint Young Sun Paradox and the necessity of goldilocks global warming to extend the time life can exist would also play out with other stars that supposedly had habitable planets. It would be a Faint Young Star Paradox.
So again, the Goldilocks fine tuning of global warming would make emergence of complex life even more improbable than often assumed and the Earth an even more privileged place than assumed.
With all that talk of global warming and the fragility of the environment, I’d think the global warming crew at TSZ would be all for asserting the fragility of the factors that allow the Earth not to incinerate but be warmed just enough by the greenhouse effect so as to not also become an ice ball.
stcordova,
OK … so … time for earth to cool sufficiently for solid water down to ocean floor, starting now?
Contribution of solar mass loss and hence orbital distance?
It really isn’t a Bayes question.
The YEC do not accept the scientific evidence, and the scientists do not accept what the YEC take to be evidence. You can’t use Bayes’ rule without agreement on what accounts as evidence.
Enough to make any significant difference? I’d like to see some numbers. …And a quick google shows the loss and its effect on earth’s orbital distance to be negligible even over billions of years.
I vaguely remember hearing a bunch of Europeans making exactly this argument, but they were thinking of the recent demise of their Ionian cousins, and looking down their metaphorical noses at the “knuckle-draggers” from Ganymede.
Nasty bunch of xenophobes, those Europeans.
To be serious though, you might want to include tidal warming (and radioactive decay and changes in Earth-Sun distance) in your model , Sal.
And feedback.
John Harshman,
Maybe – but mass loss affects luminance also, and would call into question the linear assumption of luminosity increase due only to fusion. Mass loss now is insufficient, but then we’ve had a few billion years of fusion compacting the core.
There is not just one consequence, but several, potentially reinforcing.
Allan Miller,
I would like to see some numbers that make mass loss a significant factor in solving Sal’s “Faith Young Sun” conundrum. I have strong doubts.
John Harshman,
Discussed a little more thoroughly here
But, as a general comment, I doubt the idea that there is a single knockout cause.
Allan Miller,
The paper you cite fairly conclusively rejects mass loss (and potential effects on solar luminosity of a more massive early sun) as a significant factor during the period under discussion. Best look elsewhere.
John Harshman,
Considered worth discussion though, and worth proposing by cited authors. Unless the contribution would be zero, it goes on the balance sheet.
What’s important about the paper cited by Miller vs. Sal’s attempt to make the faint young sun into the Ultimate Truth that undoes everything else (creationists often latch onto one of these, with no justification), is that the paradox includes the fact that there’s abundant evidence of liquid water on earth quite early.
Trying to pretend that the problem is only one for life and not for the rest of geology is thus backward–we know that the earth was not devastatingly cold even before life is known to exist, and the only question to be answered is why.
But Sal misses what it’s all about because what he’s all about is finding the “killer” of evolution and of certain findings of geology. Nonetheless, there is no problem about the earth being too cold for liquid water and life (at least during much of the Archaean the rest of the Precambrian), because liquid water left its mark early on and throughout much of the younger and middle-aged earth. That’s what the evidence honestly shows, and this is also what Sal fails to acknowledge.
Glen Davidson