Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
27 online now:
jar (1 member, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 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 ?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 76 of 231 (616056)
05-19-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


This is the best impersonation of creationist style arguing I've seen in a while.

--Percy


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 78 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 231 (616075)
05-19-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


Taz writes:

A) There's been several generations of stars because the sun is 3rd generation.

No one is making this argument.


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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 231 (616076)
05-19-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
05-19-2011 7:23 AM


Void

Edited by NoNukes, : Remove duplicate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-19-2011 7:23 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 231 (616077)
05-19-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
05-19-2011 7:23 AM


Percy writes:

This is the best impersonation of creationist style arguing I've seen in a while.

--Percy

Well someone needs to take the creationist approach. This discussion was going nowhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-19-2011 7:23 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-19-2011 4:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2890 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

    
Ryan
Junior Member (Idle past 2943 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-17-2011


Message 81 of 231 (616341)
05-20-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


Stuudy Genesis more.
CogitoErgoSum writes:

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 !

That might conflict with Genesis, IF extra study wasn't done, because, according to Genesis, NO STARS WERE MADE UNTIL GOD SAID, "LET THERE BE LIGHT", therefore, how could a supernova created our star! (Using your same logic)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-10-2011 9:34 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 9:57 PM Ryan has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 231 (616346)
05-20-2011 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Ryan
05-20-2011 9:31 PM


you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Ryan writes:

That might conflict with Genesis, IF extra study wasn't done, because, according to Genesis, NO STARS WERE MADE UNTIL GOD SAID, "LET THERE BE LIGHT", therefore, how could a supernova created our star! (Using your same logic)

the sun, moon, and stars are created on day four, not day one ("let there be light" etc).


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:31 PM Ryan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by granpa, posted 05-20-2011 11:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 83 of 231 (616347)
05-20-2011 10:21 PM


Mythology...
There is no scientific evidence for the Genesis myth, nor for the myth of a young earth.

Those stories are ancient tribal myths. One might as believe in the myth of a flat earth.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:32 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 135 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 7:30 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 231 (616348)
05-20-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CogitoErgoSum
05-19-2011 5:40 AM


Re: Assumptions
CogitoErgoSum writes:

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.

Creationists, with some legitimacy. might argue that your #2 and #4 are not cut in stone, so to speak.

The BB theory, upon which both are based has some questionable unknown aspects like no existing area in which to have happened, no known before the event, no existing outside of in which to have expanded and no existing time in which to have happened.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-19-2011 5:40 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 05-21-2011 8:39 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 231 (616350)
05-20-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coyote
05-20-2011 10:21 PM


Re: Mythology...
Coyote writes:

There is no scientific evidence for the Genesis myth, nor for the myth of a young earth.

Those stories are ancient tribal myths. One might as believe in the myth of a flat earth.

There has been, however, cited evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record, which does not literally depict a young earth. All hypotheses and theories have their problematic improbabilities.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2011 10:21 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 10:36 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2011 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 86 of 231 (616352)
05-20-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:32 PM


Re: Mythology...
All hypotheses and theories have their problematic improbabilities.

You are equivocating hypothesis and theory.

Please give us the definition you are using for those words.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:32 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 231 (616354)
05-20-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Theodoric
05-20-2011 10:36 PM


Re: Mythology...
Theodoric writes:

All hypotheses and theories have their problematic improbabilities.

You are equivocating hypothesis and theory.

How so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 10:36 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2011 10:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Admin, posted 05-21-2011 8:26 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 88 of 231 (616355)
05-20-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:32 PM


Re: Mythology...
Buzsaw writes:

Coyote writes:

There is no scientific evidence for the Genesis myth, nor for the myth of a young earth.

Those stories are ancient tribal myths. One might as believe in the myth of a flat earth.

There has been, however, cited evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record, which does not literally depict a young earth.


There is no credible evidence for a young earth. None.

There is a massive amount of evidence for an old earth.

The Genesis account is tribal myth, subject to multiple interpretations depending on belief. It is not hypothesis or theory, both of which are subject to, or the result of, testing against empirical evidence.

All hypotheses and theories have their problematic improbabilities.

Not sure what this means. If you are saying that scientific theories are tentative, well, we all know that.

If you are saying that scientific theories are just random guesswork unsupported by factual evidence and successful predictions, you are incorrect. In spite of what a lot of creationists may tell you, "theory" does not mean "guesswork."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 89 of 231 (616356)
05-20-2011 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
05-20-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Mythology...
There are no scientific hypotheses or theories based upon anything biblical.

Why didn't you answer the second part of my post?

Theodoric writes:

Please give us the definition you are using for those words.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 05-21-2011 8:56 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
granpa
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 90 of 231 (616358)
05-20-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
05-20-2011 9:57 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
It is my personal theory that 'round things' were created on day four.

whatever these round things were they came between the earliest living things (tree-like things) of day 3 and the living nephesh's (oxygen breathers) of day five


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 9:57 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2011 11:46 PM granpa has not yet responded
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2011 12:00 AM granpa has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019