Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
45 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,613 Year: 16,649/19,786 Month: 774/2,598 Week: 20/251 Day: 20/23 Hour: 4/2


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 ?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 58 of 231 (615554)
05-14-2011 9:30 AM


Moderator Comment
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

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 61 of 231 (615608)
05-14-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
05-14-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Topic/Forum Clarification
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 Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2011 4:52 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 96 of 231 (616379)
05-21-2011 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Mythology...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 134 of 231 (627378)
08-02-2011 9:33 AM


Moderator On Duty
Alfred Maddenstein and IamJoseph,

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


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019