Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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 ?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 31 of 231 (615423)
05-12-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
05-12-2011 8:20 AM


Re: Science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2011 8:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-13-2011 7:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 32 of 231 (615431)
05-12-2011 11:26 PM


All messages should have something to do with the sun's origins
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 625 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 33 of 231 (615454)
05-13-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by dwise1
05-12-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Science?
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 : )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2011 10:42 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 231 (615455)
05-13-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jon
05-12-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 10:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 05-13-2011 2:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 231 (615458)
05-13-2011 8:31 AM


Age Of Sun
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 12:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 231 (615481)
05-13-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 8:31 AM


Re: Age Of Sun
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 8:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 12:42 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 37 of 231 (615482)
05-13-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
05-13-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 12:39 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:48 PM jar has replied
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 12:58 PM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 38 of 231 (615483)
05-13-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
05-13-2011 12:42 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 12:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 1:08 PM Taq has replied
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2011 3:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 39 of 231 (615484)
05-13-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
05-13-2011 12:42 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 12:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 1:12 PM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 40 of 231 (615485)
05-13-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
05-13-2011 12:48 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 3:18 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 41 of 231 (615486)
05-13-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rahvin
05-13-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 12:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2011 1:35 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 1:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 231 (615487)
05-13-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-13-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 1:12 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 43 of 231 (615488)
05-13-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-13-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 1:12 PM jar has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 231 (615490)
05-13-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
05-13-2011 7:45 AM


Re: Science?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2011 7:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 45 of 231 (615491)
05-13-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
05-13-2011 1:08 PM


Re: Age Of Sun
What stars the size of Sol and smaller?
I did not think such a critter was possible?
From Universe Today:
quote:
The smallest stars out there are the tiny red dwarfs. These are stars with no more than 50% the mass of the Sun, and they can have as little as 7.5% the mass of the Sun. This is the minimum mass you need for a star to be able to support nuclear fusion in its core. Below this mass and you get the failed star brown dwarfs. One fairly well known example of a red dwarf star is Proxima Centauri; the closest star to Earth. This star has about 12% the mass of the Sun, and about 14% the size of the Sun — about 200,000 km across, which is only a little larger than Jupiter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 05-13-2011 1:08 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024