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

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.

...I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation...

A reference link to support that, please.

...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.

As I see it, if anything, it gives creationists an out to explain how God created light 2 days (wasn't it?) before the creation of the (current) sun. That light could have been from the previous sun version.

Adminnemooseus

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

"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.

I'll research properly, forget topic. My ego wouldn't be able to deal with feeling wrong !

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.

Creates light:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

---

Creates sun and moon:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

---

Source

I misguessed - God created light 3 days before creating the sun.

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

Don't want a load of links, but 1 or 2 is nice, and is (more or less) called for by forum rule 4:

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Without a reference/link, it's a bare assertion.

I could have let you get away with not having a reference/link, but such are desirable.

Adminnemooseus

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

Thread copied here from the If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Adminnemooseus writes: I misguessed - God created light 3 days before creating the sun.

True, but is that really relevant to the OP's question? When we say that the sun is second/third generation we mean that the sun was formed from material from two generations of stars that lived and died before our sun was ever formed.

If light was created before the sun and the stars, then the light created in Genesis 1:3 was from a source other than the sun and stars. Now that in itself may be problematic, but it has nothing to do with the sun being second or third generation.

Genesis 1:14-16 says that the sun, stars, and moon were all made on the fourth day. Yet the first, second, third and fourth days on earth each included a morning and an evening. (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, and 19. There seems to be plenty of contradictions with modern cosmology in days 1-4. I'm not sure the sun being 2nd generation is even the worst contradiction.

God created light 3 days before creating the sun. True, but is that really relevant to the OP's question? When we say that the sun is second/third generation we mean that the sun was formed from material from two generations of stars that lived and died before our sun was ever formed.

YECism, in general, is an exercise in jamming huge amounts of process into very short periods of time.

The point I was shooting for, was that the evidence for "two generations of stars that lived and died before our sun was ever formed" could be YEC interpreted as evidence for what happened during the creation process of day 1. And it could be a pre-sun light source, although even that wouldn't explain the pre-sun days and nights.

More evidence for something that didn't happen (a young universe/Earth creation).

Moose

This thread is in the Science Forum.

Why are there so many references to ancient tribal myths?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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 !

CogitoErgoSum writes: Sorry, after a bit of further reading. The first generation of stars also would not have had planets either Third day God created land Not if there weren't any planets !

You realize of course, that at any point in the narrative, unlimited supernatural power can be invoked. If metals (heavy elements) are needed to form the sun and planets, then God would just make them from scratch, or from hydrogen and/or helium.

You aren't critiquing YEC cosmology, but some kind of Big Bang/YEC hybrid cosmology.

Coyote writes: This thread is in the Science Forum. Why are there so many references to ancient tribal myths?

Did you read the "let there be light" in the OP? It appears that this thread is partly about an attempt to refute the Genesis record. Shouldn't there be opportunity for creationists to debate their positions?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Buzsaw writes: Coyote writes: This thread is in the Science Forum. Why are there so many references to ancient tribal myths? Did you read the "let there be light" in the OP? It appears that this thread is partly about an attempt to refute the Genesis record. Shouldn't there be opportunity for creationists to debate their positions?

No. There is enough ignorance in the world already. We don't need any more. ;-)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyote writes: Buzsaw writes: Did you read the "let there be light" in the OP? It appears that this thread is partly about an attempt to refute the Genesis record. Shouldn't there be opportunity for creationists to debate their positions? No. There is enough ignorance in the world already. We don't need any more. ;-)

Oh. Well then, perhaps you can persuade Admin to change the cite name from EvC to E=E No Debate Forums or Evolutionist Tea Party Discussion Board.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Coyote writes: Buzsaw writes: Coyote writes: This thread is in the Science Forum. Why are there so many references to ancient tribal myths? Did you read the "let there be light" in the OP? It appears that this thread is partly about an attempt to refute the Genesis record. Shouldn't there be opportunity for creationists to debate their positions? No. There is enough ignorance in the world already. We don't need any more. ;-)

I got to agree with Buzz on this, it seems to me this topic will go nowhere without the input of creationist. I cant imagine anyone else who would refute the position presented in the OP, JMHO, and I am often wrong.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera