If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?

Discussions about Biblical interpretations should be the reserve of the religion threads. If Buzsaw's position is that Genesis describes a cosmos in agreement with science and that there is no conflict then he's done in this thread. Anyone who would like to discuss interpretations of Genesis should propose a new thread over in Proposed New Topics.As someone noted earlier, this thread needs a creationist participant, but it must be one who interprets Genesis as describing a cosmos where no sun could possibly be billions of years old.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This makes sense to me.What I'd prefer not to see is a debate where the roles are reversed, with creationists arguing that scripture is consistent with science's finding that the sun is a 2nd or 3rd generation star, while evolutionists argue that scripture isn't consistent with this finding at all. That's not what this thread is about.The thread proposal poses an interesting question for mainstream creationists who presumably reject that the sun is a population I star, but if anyone would like to discuss how Genesis can be interpreted to be compatible with a sun built of material from older exploded stars then please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Buz,The best way for you to contribute to this thread is to play the role of the traditional creationist who believes the entire universe was created in six days around six or seven thousand years ago.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Alfred Maddenstein and IamJoseph,Unless you're presenting evidence around which you then build your arguments, please stop participating in this thread.