|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 653 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NoNukes writes: That said, I don't understand the requirement that the creationist side of the debate here be limited to YEC. All that is required is an explanation of why some extra elements exist in the sun so that it appears to be second generation. Apparent age explanations will not cut it, in my opinion, because as I understand stellar evolution, our tiny sun will never fuse hydrogen/helium into the heavy elements currently found in the sun. 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].
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes:
That said, I don't understand the requirement that the creationist side of the debate here be limited to YEC. All that is required is an explanation of why some extra elements exist in the sun so that it appears to be second generation. Apparent age explanations will not cut it, in my opinion, because as I understand stellar evolution, our tiny sun will never fuse hydrogen/helium into the heavy elements currently found in the sun. The wording in the text goes:
quote: After thinking further about this wording, it doesn't emphatically say when the great lights were made and where they existed until they were set in the heavens related to planet earth. The term heavens, like day etc can be relative to text, the heavens relating to the earth being our own Solar System or perhaps our Milky Way Galaxy. The context of verses 1-3 indicate that until day four these lights were no in the earth's heavens. The term "set" seems to imply moving from one area of the heavens to that relating to planet earth. Conclusion: Whether 1st generation or 2nd or 3rd would not affect the Genesis one account. In Revelation 16 (I think verse 4 without looking) the 4th vial of wrath poured on the earth an extreme global warming caused by the sun. Other Revelation prophecies as well as some OT prophecies depict of a latter time drying up of the rivers and extreme drought on earth. I cite this because perhaps (I say perhaps) that would be more indicative to a 3rd generation sun than a 1st generation sun. One thing for sure, is that the Genesis record does not state how long days one through four were, whether relatively short or exceedingly long. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
You wouldn’t have water either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes: I cite this because perhaps (I say perhaps) that would be more indicative to a 3rd generation sun than a 1st generation sun. I am not aware of any reason to think this. I think any response to the main points of your post would be squarely in the Admin's non-preferred vein. I agree that you can probably insert some explanations in the gaps of the Biblical text as long as you don't require 24 hour days. I personally think that Moses just did not understand astronomy all that well. Some of the text makes only makes sense if you assume a geocentric universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Stellar evolutionary theory states the existence of multi-generations of stars. Different generations of stars states the existence of stellar evolutionary theory. Sounds circular to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Taz writes: Stellar evolutionary theory states the existence of multi-generations of stars. Different generations of stars states the existence of stellar evolutionary theory. Sounds circular to me. No one has made such an argument. Besides that, you are wrong. Stellar evolution is simply about the birth, main sequence time, and death of individual stars. Unlike biological evolution, stellar evolution is about the changes in stars during their existence, and not about changes from generation to generation. Other evidence (e.g. stellar metallicity) suggests that there have been more than one generation of stars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
While I will give you that stellar evolution deals with lifetime of a star, it implies multiple generations of stars. Where do you think 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation stars come from? Santa Claus?
Besides that, you are wrong. Stellar evolution is simply about the birth, main sequence time, and death of individual stars. Unlike biological evolution, stellar evolution is about the changes in stars during their existence, and not about changes from generation to generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
If your point is that the terminology can be confusing when first encountered, even misleading, I think many would grant that point.
But if you want to change what has become accepted and fairly standard terminology within astrophysics then, well, good luck with that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to change anything. I am, however, pointing out the implication of stellar evolution, which is that a new generation of star is born from the death of previous generation.
Again, if you want to ignore this implication, then where do subsequent generations of stars come from? Santa Clause? Edit. Hence the circular argument. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Oh, okay. Well, since I see neither a significant point nor a circular argument I'll just bow out.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Taz writes:
While I will give you that stellar evolution deals with lifetime of a star, it implies multiple generations of stars. Where do you think 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation stars come from? Santa Claus? Sol contains elements other than hydrogen and helium that it cannot generate from nuclear fusion. We do not expect that those elements were formed in the Big Bang. Thus Sol is not a first generation star. In fact, Sol's relatively high metallicity suggests that Sol is probably a population I star. I'm with Percy. I do not see a circular argument. Help me see what you see. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Pretty hefty assumptions here. Sol contains elements other than hydrogen and helium that it cannot generate from nuclear fusion. We do not expect that those elements were formed in the Big Bang. Thus Sol is not a first generation star. In fact, Sol's relatively high metallicity suggests that Sol is probably a population I star. (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 Congrats on making a post containing entirely of nonsensical assumptions. Circular argument: A) There's been several generations of stars because the sun is 3rd generation. B) The sun is 3rd generation because there's been several generations (or populations) of stars. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The composition of the sun can be easily determined.
Here's a good link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2522387117r87q7/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oli Junior Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 16 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
Taz writes: Circular argument: A) There's been several generations of stars because the sun is 3rd generation. B) The sun is 3rd generation because there's been several generations (or populations) of stars. The sun contains metals it could not produce itself > Older stars (population II) have lower metal content than younger stars > The metal content of the universe is rising > There must have been a generation of stars before the sun to produce those metals. There is no circular argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CogitoErgoSum Junior Member (Idle past 653 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined:
|
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 Error 404 - non-existent address, 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024