Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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 ?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 61 of 231 (615608)
05-14-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
05-14-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Topic/Forum Clarification
NoNukes writes:
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.
This makes sense to me.
What I'd prefer not to see is a debate where the roles are reversed, with creationists arguing that scripture is consistent with science's finding that the sun is a 2nd or 3rd generation star, while evolutionists argue that scripture isn't consistent with this finding at all. That's not what this thread is about.
The thread proposal poses an interesting question for mainstream creationists who presumably reject that the sun is a population I star, but if anyone would like to discuss how Genesis can be interpreted to be compatible with a sun built of material from older exploded stars then please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2011 4:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 231 (615614)
05-14-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
05-14-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Topic/Forum Clarification
NoNukes writes:
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.
The wording in the text goes:
quote:
16And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, -- and the stars.
17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth,
After thinking further about this wording, it doesn't emphatically say when the great lights were made and where they existed until they were set in the heavens related to planet earth. The term heavens, like day etc can be relative to text, the heavens relating to the earth being our own Solar System or perhaps our Milky Way Galaxy. The context of verses 1-3 indicate that until day four these lights were no in the earth's heavens. The term "set" seems to imply moving from one area of the heavens to that relating to planet earth.
Conclusion: Whether 1st generation or 2nd or 3rd would not affect the Genesis one account.
In Revelation 16 (I think verse 4 without looking) the 4th vial of wrath poured on the earth an extreme global warming caused by the sun. Other Revelation prophecies as well as some OT prophecies depict of a latter time drying up of the rivers and extreme drought on earth. I cite this because perhaps (I say perhaps) that would be more indicative to a 3rd generation sun than a 1st generation sun.
One thing for sure, is that the Genesis record does not state how long days one through four were, whether relatively short or exceedingly long.

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 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2011 4:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2011 8:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 63 of 231 (615734)
05-16-2011 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


You wouldn’t have water either.

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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 231 (615825)
05-17-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-14-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Topic/Forum Clarification
Buzsaw writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2011 6:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 65 of 231 (615919)
05-18-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2011 12:33 PM Taz has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 231 (615932)
05-18-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Taz
05-18-2011 10:01 AM


Taz writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 10:01 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 67 of 231 (615990)
05-18-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
05-18-2011 12:33 PM


NoNukes writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2011 12:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 05-18-2011 8:00 PM Taz has replied
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2011 9:45 PM Taz has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 231 (615993)
05-18-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taz
05-18-2011 7:42 PM


If your point is that the terminology can be confusing when first encountered, even misleading, I think many would grant that point.
But if you want to change what has become accepted and fairly standard terminology within astrophysics then, well, good luck with that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 8:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 69 of 231 (615994)
05-18-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
05-18-2011 8:00 PM


You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to change anything. I am, however, pointing out the implication of stellar evolution, which is that a new generation of star is born from the death of previous generation.
Again, if you want to ignore this implication, then where do subsequent generations of stars come from? Santa Clause?
Edit.
Hence the circular argument.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 05-18-2011 8:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 05-18-2011 9:05 PM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 231 (616006)
05-18-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
05-18-2011 8:10 PM


Oh, okay. Well, since I see neither a significant point nor a circular argument I'll just bow out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 8:10 PM Taz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 231 (616011)
05-18-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taz
05-18-2011 7:42 PM


Taz writes:
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.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 05-19-2011 12:10 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 231 (616029)
05-19-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes
05-18-2011 9:45 PM


NoNukes writes:
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.
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
Congrats on making a post containing entirely of nonsensical assumptions.
Circular argument:
A) There's been several generations of stars because the sun is 3rd generation.
B) The sun is 3rd generation because there's been several generations (or populations) of stars.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2011 9:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2011 12:46 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 74 by Oli, posted 05-19-2011 5:29 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 75 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-19-2011 5:40 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-19-2011 7:23 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:28 AM Taz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 231 (616030)
05-19-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


Solar spectrum
The composition of the sun can be easily determined.
Here's a good link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2522387117r87q7/

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

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


Message 74 of 231 (616043)
05-19-2011 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


Taz writes:
Circular argument:
A) There's been several generations of stars because the sun is 3rd generation.
B) The sun is 3rd generation because there's been several generations (or populations) of stars.
The sun contains metals it could not produce itself > Older stars (population II) have lower metal content than younger stars > The metal content of the universe is rising > There must have been a generation of stars before the sun to produce those metals.
There is no circular argument.

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

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


(2)
Message 75 of 231 (616046)
05-19-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


Assumptions
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 Error 404 - non-existent address, 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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2011 10:26 PM CogitoErgoSum has 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