Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 ?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 231 (615357)
05-12-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum
05-12-2011 4:28 AM


Re: Science?
Sorry, after a bit of further reading. The first generation of stars also would not have had planets either
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | First stars had no planets
So first day God created light
Third day God created land
Gen. 1 says nothing about God creating land on the third day. Where are you reading this?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 4:28 AM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:21 PM Jon has replied

  
Oli
Junior Member (Idle past 4393 days)
Posts: 16
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 04-03-2011


Message 17 of 231 (615360)
05-12-2011 12:20 PM


Star Formation
CogitoErgoSum writes:
Does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative.
Well, perhaps not in itself since god created the sun and the stars on the same day, but it doesn't say in what order he created them in. The fact that it takes molecular clouds millions of years to collapse into stars might make a literal one day interpretation a bit difficult though.
Also, there are stars observed in the galaxy in various stages of thier billion-year life cycles. So it looks like god created an 'aged' universe.
Not to mention that most of these objects are more than 6000 light years away...
Oli

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 18 of 231 (615361)
05-12-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
05-12-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Science?
Jon writes:
Sorry, after a bit of further reading. The first generation of stars also would not have had planets either
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | First stars had no planets
So first day God created light
Third day God created land
Gen. 1 says nothing about God creating land on the third day. Where are you reading this?
Gen 1:9-13 taken from here
9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 12:08 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 12:39 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-12-2011 12:46 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 231 (615363)
05-12-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Science?
Jon writes:
Gen. 1 says nothing about God creating land on the third day. Where are you reading this?
Gen 1:9-13 taken from here
9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
Yep, I read that. My question still stands, though.
Edited by Jon, : added quote

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:21 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:47 PM Jon has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 231 (615364)
05-12-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Science?
What Jon isquestioning is the fable being a creation fable as opposed to an organization fable. The initial image in Genesis 1 is of Chaos, a chaos system that exists but that the God character brings into order. It is not so much an act of creating land as of separating it from the water.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:21 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 21 of 231 (615365)
05-12-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jon
05-12-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Science?
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??
I think maybe the OP could've been a little clearer by using exact passages.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 12:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 1:11 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2011 1:27 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 231 (615366)
05-12-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 12:47 PM


Re: Science?
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??
I think jar hit the nail on the head. The whole notion of there actually being a creation is just ridiculous. An attempt to look for ways to reconcile scientific facts with a story is just pointless and silly. The story is just wrong. Plain and simple.
Nonetheless, if one wishes to take shots at the story, it helps if they've at least actually read the story.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:47 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 1:42 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 231 (615367)
05-12-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 12:47 PM


Re: Science?
fearandloathing writes:
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 12:47 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 1:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 24 of 231 (615369)
05-12-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jon
05-12-2011 1:11 PM


Re: Science?
I guess I may have misinterpreted the passages, I am no creationist by any means and probably have no business interpreting a book I don't believe in. I simply seen your question and thought I would look it up for myself and put my 2 cent in, as I have said before, I am often wrong, and probably continue to be so on a regular basis.
Not sure about the future of this topic??

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 1:11 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 2:58 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 25 of 231 (615371)
05-12-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
05-12-2011 1:27 PM


Re: Science?
Nonukes writes:
The OP's original question did not require sorting out when land was created.
Yes I see now, the OP's writer made a statement in msg 10 that refereed to land on 3rd day, I should've looked back before saying the OP wasn't clear
.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2011 1:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 231 (615383)
05-12-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by fearandloathing
05-12-2011 1:42 PM


Re: Science?
Not sure about the future of this topic??
I don't think it has a future. There's simply no way to reconcile the facts with some literal reading of Genesis.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by fearandloathing, posted 05-12-2011 1:42 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 5:48 PM Jon has replied

  
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 625 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 27 of 231 (615390)
05-12-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
05-12-2011 2:58 PM


Re: Science?
Sorry I hadn't had time to reply. My very quick version of Genesis, 1st day light, 3rd day land
First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]
Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6—7]the second commandto divide the waters above from the waters below.
Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9—10]
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
and the question I was asking, perhaps a little glibly, was that if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?
Sorry, I realise I hadn't explained this clearly. Put it down to my forum virginity.
Must try harder ........
Edited by CogitoErgoSum, : Forgot to put source in

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 2:58 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-12-2011 5:57 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2011 9:54 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 10:25 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 231 (615392)
05-12-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum
05-12-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Science?
CogitoErgoSum writes:
Sorry I hadn't had time to reply. My very quick version of Genesis, 1st day light, 3rd day land
First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]
Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6—7]the second commandto divide the waters above from the waters below.
Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9—10]
and the question I was asking, perhaps a little glibly, was that if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?
Sorry, I realise I hadn't explained this clearly. Put it down to my forum virginity.
Must try harder ........
It isn't.
Genesis 1 is a much later story than the rest of Genesis but the emphasis was not on the creation narrative, rather the narrative was simply a plot device to discuss in poetic language the relationships between man and God and God and creation as seen by the people of that time and culture, likely between 640-610 BCE.
The main purposes were to establish the Sabbath and to show what the people then saw as the relationship and overarching nature of their God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 5:48 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 231 (615420)
05-12-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum
05-12-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Science?
CogitoErgoSum writes:
if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?
Hi CES. Welcome to the site. I'm literalist old earth creationist with a unique perspective. Genesis one begins with an opening statement before the day/night work had begun. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That statement does not give any time frame as to when he made them. He simply states that whenever they were made he did it.
In order to effect the work of the first three days to suit him, he needed a great amount of heat and light; more than our sun would have afforded.
We read in Revelation about the new Heavens new earth and new Jerusalem which is to come. The text says there will be no sun & moon in the Holy City because the glory of God will lighten it. The implication in Genesis one is that the glory of God via the Holy Spirit will be the source of light until our sun was created on the fourth day.
The light was likely regulated to the precise temperature to effect the evaporation of the water from the void of the cold wet planet in order to created the perfect atmosphere and to separate the land and water on earth.
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. I include day four, because the text does not state how long it took to do the work of day four, i.e. create and set the lights in the firmament, as the text puts it.
In chapter two verse 4. we read phrase worded, in the day that God created the earth the sun, moon and the heavens. The term day here is obviously not a literal day but referring to the time when each were made.

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 27 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 5:48 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 4:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 231 (615422)
05-12-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum
05-12-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Science?
if our sun is a second or even third generation star, how is this accounted for in this narrative ?
The obvious answer is that it simply isn't accounted for.
There was no Genesis creation.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 5:48 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 7:45 AM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024