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.
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.
I guess I don't understand your question, I know it wasn't directed at me but I figured I would put my 2 cents in as I had just got done looking at the passage.
Do you think he means gen 1:1 or ??? It seems clear to me it was on 3rd day based on gen 1:9-13... Am I wrong and why??
Maybe. Does "let the dry land appear" mean creating land or uncovering pre-existing land? What was the formless earth created on day 1? One interpretation is that water and dirt were created on the first day.
I think maybe the OP could've been a little clearer by using exact passages.
The OP's original question did not require sorting out when land was created. I cannot imagine that a YEC would find these questions all that interesting. Wouldn't a YEC simply insist that whatever modern cosmology says is completely wrong? Isn't it really the science minded, old earth creationists that have to deal with the conflicts?
In the later pages of that thread I did, IMO, establish that if the sun were relatively suddenly created it would have shown the appearance of well over 30,000,000 years old, that being the length of time for a proto-star to develop/evolve into a star, according to conventional cosmology.
The sun is actually several billions of years old. 30 million years is essentially a new born sun for stars of the size of sol and smaller. Of course none of us would have been around to see such a sun, so the fact that we cannot tell whether our sun is currently 4.5 or 4.53 billion years old seems pretty trivial.
And how is the appearance of age concept even relevant? The sun does not produce carbon or oxygen from fusion even now. We don't expect the sun to produce any carbon or oxygen while the sun is on the main sequence, if ever. The sun will never produce iron, sulfur, or magnesium.
So why are carbon, oxygen, iron, sulfur etc. found in the sun?
What NoNukes is trying to say is that stars the size of Sol and smaller (that are still stars and not gas giants) have very long lifespans compared to larger stars. 30 million years is a drop in the bucket for a 10 billion year lifespan (the expected overall lifespan of our Sun before it expands into a red giant).
Exactly so. The theoretical minimum mass for a main sequence star is are about 7-8% of the mass of the sun. The smallest known star is about 12% of the mass of the sun.
The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day. Clearly implicated is that before day five, we have no knowledge as to how long the first four days were.
That's right. We have no knowledge at all as to the length of those days. In fact there is no Biblical evidence that days 1-3 were not about 24 hours long or even shorter. There is no indication in the Bible that evening and morning became different lengths after the sun, moon, and stars were created.
You can believe what you want, for whatever reasons you want. But your claim "The record tells us that one of the primary functions of the sun was to initiate the 24 hr day," is not Biblical. It's your own supposition.
Say what? No indication whatsoever? None? What then are the implications of verse fourteen?
quote: 4 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
The implication is that one of the purposes of the sun being created on day four was to determine the days years and seasons for the planet. No?
Definitely no. I'm quite sure you are wrong. For one thing day in the verse clearly means daylight period of a day/night cycle.
The stars have nothing to do with the length of the seasons or the length of a day. But we can identify the seasons by observing the stars at a particular point in time each day. Or knowing the time of year we can determine the hour by observing the stars or even the position of the sun among the stars.
Genesis 1:14 reflects the truth that the stars are visible at night, are invisible during the day, form constellations and indicate the seasons and the passage of time. Surely you understand that the stars don't actually cause or regulate the passage of time.
The length of a day is determined essentially by the period of rotation of the earth. Darkness and light during a day might depend on the sun, but the overall length of a day on earth does not. We can mark the length of a sidereal day by observing the position of any visible star. We can mark a solar day with the sun.
Finally the length of the seasons is irrelevant for this discussion. There is no mention of the passage of seasons during days 1-7.
Is a forum change in order here, in order that creationists may respond in kind to the topic which is as much about creationism as it is about science and Bible study?
I think some amount of Biblical interpretation is necessary in this thread, but I agree with the moderator that we're debating aspects that were not relevant to the topic at hand. Quite frankly, I'm not willing to join you in yet another debate about the meaning of "yom". Savvy?
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.
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.
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.
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.