Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
Diomedes, jar (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 1 of 231 (615255)
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


First posting, having read these forums from afar, so bear with me. Not my specialisation really, I teach Biology, but having to teach life cycles of stars I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation ; as they have found out by looking at the composition, does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. I await being torn apart with trepidation !

Edited by CogitoErgoSum, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 3:54 AM CogitoErgoSum has responded
 Message 63 by Trae, posted 05-16-2011 6:01 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 10:01 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:31 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 9:12 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-02-2011 5:16 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Blue, posted 05-05-2014 11:28 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 3 of 231 (615257)
05-11-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
05-11-2011 3:54 AM


Re: Reference please, etc.
"Our own sun contains about 2 percent of these heavier elements [oxygen and carbon] because it is a second- or third- generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas. Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the earth." Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time

Sorry I didn't want to just produce a post with a load of links on it, as I find those a little wearing.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sun

I realise that to accept this the timeframe would play havoc with YEC anyway.

You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 3:54 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 3:45 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 7:54 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 4 of 231 (615258)
05-11-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum
05-11-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Reference please, etc.
I'll research properly, forget topic. My ego wouldn't be able to deal with feeling wrong !
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 10:36 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 10 of 231 (615289)
05-12-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
05-11-2011 10:50 PM


Re: Science?
Sorry, after a bit of further reading. The first generation of stars also would not have had planets either

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3083875.stm

So first day God created light

Third day God created land

Not if there weren't any planets !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2011 10:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2011 6:33 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 12:08 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 27 of 231 (615390)
05-12-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
05-12-2011 2:58 PM


Re: Science?
Sorry I hadn't had time to reply. My very quick version of Genesis, 1st day light, 3rd day land

First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]

Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below.

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

and the question I was asking, perhaps a little glibly, was that if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?

Sorry, I realise I hadn't explained this clearly. Put it down to my forum virginity.

Must try harder ........

Edited by CogitoErgoSum, : Forgot to put source in


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 2:58 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-12-2011 5:57 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2011 9:54 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 10:25 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 33 of 231 (615454)
05-13-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by dwise1
05-12-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Science?
Again, for the third time, I apologise for not making my point clear.
Dwise you are correct, I was wondering how creationists would deal with the facts.
I would also like the opportunity for creationists to debate their positions.
However, it seems doomed to failure so I will retreat and lick my wounds.
And Buzz, thanks for the welcome : )
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2011 10:42 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


(2)
Message 75 of 231 (616046)
05-19-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


Assumptions
Pretty hefty assumptions here.
(1) Sol contains elements other than hydrogen and helium? Has anyone taken a sample from the sun and tested it out? Blowing hot air much these days?

(2) You assume these elements didn't form in the big bang.

(3) You assume there was a big bang.

(4) Sol is not a first generation star, which goes back to the circular argument.

(5) Sol has metalic elements. Again, anyone ever taken a sample from the sun? Seems to me like the scientific community is just blowing hot air on this one LOL

1) One word - spectroscopy, however there are other methods, see http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/abundance_sun/, high school science really.

2) The EVIDENCE for the big bang suggests these elements didn't form in the big bang.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm. There are links to other articles at the bottom, and quite a good finishing paragraph.

3) See 2

4) The EVIDENCE from 2, and the EVIDENCE from 1, along with what we know about supernova etc. would suggest that Sol is not a first generation star.

5) see 1

If you are looking for 100% proof, never going to happen, as I am sure has been pointed out on these forums there is no such thing as 100% proof. However the EVIDENCE leads us to... is not the same as assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 05-19-2011 12:10 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:26 PM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

    
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 80 of 231 (616116)
05-19-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
05-19-2011 10:46 AM


Oh dear
I thought six pages for a first ever post was quite good ! : p
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:46 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019