|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 626 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
It appears that this thread is partly about an attempt to refute the Genesis record. I see the thread as wondering how creationists would deal with the facts.
Shouldn't there be opportunity for creationists to debate their positions? Yes, I do think that there should be. However much we may hypothesize how creationists would respond to the facts, we would not know that until we were given actual responses from creationists. Otherwise it would be like those threads where fundamentalists lecture atheists on what atheists think and believe and yet refuse to listen to any actual atheist who tries to tell those fundamentalists differently, namely that those fundamentalists obviously have no idea what atheists think or believe. Non-creationists may analyze and hypothesize all they want, but they still need to try to test the conclusions they arrive at against the real thing. Of course, that analysis and those hypotheses can then inform and direct their discussion with creationists -- sorry, but decades of experience have informed me to not trust a creationist's statements on face-value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
This topic was probably exceptionally doomed to being a disaster area, but shall we take a stab at keeping it in the vicinity of the original topic theme?
Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Typo in subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CogitoErgoSum Junior Member (Idle past 626 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
Again, for the third time, I apologise for not making my point clear.
Dwise you are correct, I was wondering how creationists would deal with the facts. I would also like the opportunity for creationists to debate their positions. However, it seems doomed to failure so I will retreat and lick my wounds. And Buzz, thanks for the welcome : )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jon writes: 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. LOL. Your assertion remains debatable. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Way back in 2003 there was a sun thread segment in which I debated Eta Carina about a suddenly created sun as to the appearance of age etc. The thread was A young sun - a response.
That was before I realized that the Genesis one record did not state how old the sun, moon and stars were. 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. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes:
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? Edited by NoNukes, : change earth to sol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
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. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
jar writes: NoNukes writes:
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. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? A body needs to be several times larger than Jupiter to achieve fusion and become a star. Jupiter is the biggest gas giant in our solar system, but it's not really that big compared to other gas giants we've detected elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger?
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). What stars the size of Sol and smaller? I did not think such a critter was possible? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvin writes: jar writes: NoNukes writes:
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. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? A body needs to be several times larger than Jupiter to achieve fusion and become a star. Jupiter is the biggest gas giant in our solar system, but it's not really that big compared to other gas giants we've detected elsewhere. That's what I thought; not necessarily several times larger but at least more massive. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
As I understand it Jupiter would need to be about 60 times more massive than it is to be a star. In terms of composition it is actually quite star like also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
jar writes: Rahvin writes: jar writes: NoNukes writes:
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. Sure about that? Maybe the size of Jupiter or a little larger? I didn't think something with the mass of Earth or less would be capable of becoming a star? A body needs to be several times larger than Jupiter to achieve fusion and become a star. Jupiter is the biggest gas giant in our solar system, but it's not really that big compared to other gas giants we've detected elsewhere. That's what I thought; not necessarily several times larger but at least more massive. Sorry - when I talk about bodies in space and I say "larger" or "smaller," I'm almost always referring to relative mass rather than volume. Should probably kick that habit. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: 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. LOL. Your assertion remains debatable. Then, by all means, debate it. Present your evidence; show us your method. Give us some reason to think that the Genesis creation myths are anything other than fables with no scientific merit whatsoever. We're all waiting for your evidence; have been for years. Here's your chance! Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
What stars the size of Sol and smaller? I did not think such a critter was possible? From Universe Today:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024