If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?

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

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

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 !

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)

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 LOL1) 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 24) 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 1If 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.

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.

All hypotheses and theories have their problematic improbabilities.

Theodoric writes:You are equivocating hypothesis and theory.

Buzsaw writes: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.

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