Bull Ring Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by Syriusly, Dec 24, 2018.

  1. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    53,648
    Thanks Received:
    6,686
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +21,526
    Ding posited that much of Genesis 1 and 2 has been confirmed by science. In a specific post he stated that the dust that Adam was supposedly created from, by God, is actually star dust, because all dust originally was star dust, and star dust is created from atoms, which have existed from the beginning of the Universe.

    My response was that Genesis 2 does not refer to atoms in any fashion. A reference to dust is no more a reference to atoms than a reference to ferns is a reference to atoms- and that his position is merely a rationalization trying to fit the known square pegs of science to the written round holes of Genesis 2.

    I am new to the Bull Ring but I read the rules- I can't think of any impartial judges that we might agree on so no judges. I suggest we limit the total posts from each of us to 10 posts.

    I also request that any claims made regarding facts or science be supported by at least one reference to a reputable scientific source.

    This post just establishes the thread- Ding- you are up first to present your position regarding Genesis 2 and Dust.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    54,892
    Thanks Received:
    9,728
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +35,510
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    If we are going to debate my position, then I should state my position. Fair enough?

    Usually in a debate each side has a position that they debate. Could you please state your position? Unless your position is ding is wrong which would totally be consistent with critical theory.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    Ding's position:

    Point #1: Genesis is the allegorical account of the history of the world that all people share.

    The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

    Approximately 1500 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

    The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  5. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    Ding's position:

    Point #2: Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation. Specifically, the creation of the universe and everything in it from nothing and the evolution of space and time from cosmic evolution through the evolution of consciousness.

    We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

    Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

    Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

    Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool.

    Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of creation and describes that the universe was created in steps or stage or phases. Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these condition being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

    Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis tells us that space and time had a beginning, that it was created in steps and that life came from inanimate matter.
     
  6. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    Ding presents an expert witness in support of his position that the big bang matches the account of creation in the Bible:

    Similarly, Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

    “Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

    “It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

    Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

    Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia
     
  7. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    Ding presents an expert witness in support of his position that we are made from stardust:

    "We are a way for the universe to know itself. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff," Sagan famously stated in one episode.

    His statement sums up the fact that the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms in our bodies, as well as atoms of all other heavy elements, were created in previous generations of stars over 4.5 billion years ago. Because humans and every other animal as well as most of the matter on Earth contain these elements, we are literally made of star stuff, said Chris Impey, professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona.

    "All organic matter containing carbon was produced originally in stars," Impey told Life's Little Mysteries. "The universe was originally hydrogen and helium, the carbon was made subsequently, over billions of years."

    How star stuff got to Earth

    When it has exhausted its supply of hydrogen, it can die in a violent explostion, called a nova. The explosion of a massive star, called a supernova, can be billions of times as bright as the Sun , according to "Supernova," (World Book, Inc., 2005). Such a stellar explosion throws a large cloud of dust and gas into space, with the amount and composition of the material expelled varying depending on the type of supernova.

    A supernova reaches its peak brightness a few days after it first occurred, during which time it may outshine an entire galaxy of stars. The dead star then continues to shine intensely for several weeks before gradually fading from view, according to "Supernova."

    The material from a supernova eventually disperses throughout interstellar space. The oldest stars almost exclusively consisted of hydrogen and helium, with oxygen and the rest of the heavy elements in the universe later coming from supernova explosions, according to "Cosmic Collisions: The Hubble Atlas of Merging Galaxies," (Springer, 2009).

    "It's a well-tested theory," Impey said. "We know that stars make heavy elements, and late in their lives, they eject gas into the medium between stars so it can be part of subsequent stars and planets (and people)."

    Cosmic connections

    So, all life on Earth and the atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of now-long-dead stars, he said.

    Are We Really All Made of Stars?

    Chris Impey
     
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    53,648
    Thanks Received:
    6,686
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +21,526
    Ding- this is an interesting position- but not what you originally challenged me- so I suggest if you would like to pursue this challenge that you set up a separate thread for this challenge. I also want to advise that for the next several days I may not have much time to respond- Christmas, family, etc., but I will respond when I can.

    I suggest we do not count this post or my response to it to the limit of 10 posts that I suggested for the challenge.
     
  9. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    64,307
    Thanks Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +22,273
    No. This has always been my position. Why don't you provide my quote that you think was a different opinion. Then I am certain you will see your error.

    You don't get to state my opinion.

    The ball is in your court. My position stands as is because this is always what it has been. You are free to concede the debate after you admit you made a mistake.
     
  10. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    53,648
    Thanks Received:
    6,686
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +21,526
    Syriusly's position:
    Genesis 1 and 2 are the allegorical creation myths of the Christian Old Testament and Jewish Torah- t
    and do not represent any knowledge of the science by the authors, and do not reflect any form accuracy to the accepted science of today.

    We shall start from Genesis 1- which somewhat contradicts Genesis 2- and actually represents two different creation myths from two different creation myths.

    Now in order for Genesis 1 to represent a somewhat scientific allegory- it must logically not have any major gaffs that we know are not scientifically accurate.

    But it is quickly obvious that Genesis 1 has multiple major inaccuracies, even when accepting huge amount of leeway in interpreting the actual words of the Bible with known science.

    My position is that those who claim that Genesis 1 represents allegorical scientific accuracy are rationalizing to fit the known fa- cts into their own beliefs- Patterns: The Need for Order and ignore the facts that contradict their beliefs.

    My next post will detail the major inaccuracies of Genesis 1
     

Share This Page