I guess it gets down to wether you believe the astronomers theories about origins of life or rather how the elements that make life possible form. Seems to me the creation of the universe happened billions of years before the earth existed, which really throws a wrench into the Book of Genesis. So to keep this on topic does anyone really dispute the astronomers view on the life and death of stars and the creation of our "great light" ruling the day. You can call the Sun whatever you want it won't change what it is. Absolutely we have a limited understanding of the "natural" world, but we do know much more than 2000 years ago.
"Massive stars burn brighter and perish more dramatically than most. When a star ten times more massive then Sun exhaust the helium in the core, the nuclear fusion cycle continues. The carbon core contracts further and reaches high enough temperature to burn carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, sulphur and finally to iron. Iron is the most stable form of nuclear matter and there is no energy to be gained by converting it to any heavier element. Without any source of heat to balance the gravity, the iron core collapses until it reaches nuclear densities. This high density core resists further collapse causing the in-falling matter to 'bounce' off the core. This sudden core bounce (which includes the release of energetic neutrinos from the core) produces a supernova explosion. For one brilliant month, a single star burns brighter than a whole galaxy of a billion stars. Supernova explosions inject carbon, oxygen, silicon and other heavy elements up to iron into interstellar space. They are also the site where most of the elements heavier than iron are produced. Future generations of stars formed from this heavy element enriched gas will therefore start life with a richer supply of heavier elements than the earlier generations of stars. Without supernova, the fiery death of massive stars, there would be no carbon, oxygen or other elements that make life possible." Fantastical explanations were probably the only way ancient aliens had to
communicate complex theories about cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. to a bunch of goat herders. ;-)
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:42 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] some misconceptions,was "own"
From Genesis.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
The 2 great lights, the Sun and Moon. The stars are mentioned as separate entities. Genesis offers fantastical explanations that do not conform to modern scientific observations.
Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear
up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable)
1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12.
2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written.
3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc.
4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior.
5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all.
Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3292 - Release Date: 12/01/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com