Science in the bible?
Posted on: Sat, 2007-07-28 16:32
Offline
Science in the bible?
Gen. 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
K, so here the bible says we are basically dust and breath.
Dust = Earth = [i][b]Carbon[/b][/i]
Breath = [i][b]Water[/b] [/i](breath on a cold window and see what you get)
now this is common knowledge in biology ( taken from wikipedias article on life):
" Properties common to these organisms – plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria – are a [i][b]carbon and water-based[/b][/i] cellular form with complex organization and genetic information."
how would the people who wrote the bible 2,000 + years ago know what is needed to make life?
found that kinda interesting...
It really depends on how you interpret it. Someone else could put it as:
Dust = Mud
Breath = Air
Which doesn't really make sense.
For example there are people who interpret [url=http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html]Jesus' teachings as anarcho-capitalistic[/url]. A right-winger will disagree that the bible is anarchistic - which shows that how you view the bible is influenced by your current views.
its all relativity
;)
lol
but seriously thats one of the big problems with the bible, their lack of knowledge leaves it open for interpretation
but even if you interpret dust as mud isnt it still carbon and water?
and you added something else that we need, air
and with the political aspect of the bible, i believe that god is a dictator and heaven is communist.
aha im gunna be hated for saying that XD
(since im christian the other christians on here will probably kill me on the grounds that this is blasphemy to them, but i dont care im my own subdivision of christianity)
Yea, I agree it's relative.
I could also go a different way and put it as:
Mud = Dirt = Germs
Air = Gas = Poison
kudos on the poison gas argument
but now ur adding life [germs] to the mud
so its not pure mud
How about "Mud = Quicksand = Dangerous", then?
now your turning a noun into an adjective
lol
but either way humans are dangerous...
The Quran is more specific.
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things)." -The Quran, 25:54
well there are those who claim that allah and yawheh [ the christian god] are the same god. so theres a connection there
but also, the quran fails to mention carbon. but the bible mentions it.
the way i see it they are to viewpoints on the same thing
[quote=rafreyna]now your turning a noun into an adjective
lol
but either way humans are dangerous...[/quote]
Or how about, "Mud = Quicksand = Hazard to human life"?
[quote=American Atheist]The Quran is more specific.
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things)." -The Quran, 25:54[/quote]
Glad you're back. :D
[quote=rafreyna]well there are those who claim that allah and yawheh [ the christian god] are the same god. so theres a connection there
but also, the quran fails to mention carbon. but the bible mentions it.
the way i see it they are to viewpoints on the same thing[/quote]
Well, the Quran talks about how everyone has their own finger prints and the Bible doesn't.
Who knows?
Anyway, I will be back later.
This topic is very interesting.
[quote=noor][quote=American Atheist]The Quran is more specific.
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things)." -The Quran, 25:54[/quote]
Glad you're back. :D[/quote]
Thanks. ;)
yeah it is a very interesting topic.
ill be waiting for your return american athiest. Id hate to see a topic this interesting end here so ill go study up a bit so we can keep this thread going.
:)
i'm sorry...what? Are you implying that dust is carbon?
Dust is, by definition, any solid particle of the size less than 500 micrometers in diameter. In some cases, it is indeed pulverized skin cells(which has some Carbon, that is true, but that is not all it contains). It normally, however, is just rock. Some of which might be Carbon dust, but quite often is calcium, limestone etc...
yeah only some dust is carbon but you also just added more elements needed for life such a calcium. And some versions say earth others say dust but the concept is all the same that we are made of carbon, calcium, limestone and other minerals and elements found in dirt. Either way you look at it it all works out.
exactly my point, you can twist it to anything. But dust does not imply any of those, I was just providing examples to show the wide range of options. Dust implies nothing except that the particles be 500 micrometers
You could have Arsenic dust.
And same if it says earth, you're picking and choosing. Some stuff in earth is good for people. Other stuff in earth is essential to life. SOme is very bad, like for example nitrates. You are picking earth and going to its symbolic meaning as the giver of life/feeder of plants etc and ignoring that that is not necessary. FOr example, moon dust would be significantly less conducive to life. Space dust too. earth dust is conducive to earth life because we evolved to be useful to dust, but you're just picking and choosing earth to represent what you want it to. The world is made up of the same general components, so obviously if I pick any objects I will find some similarities. But quick survey.
Aside from dust and wind and water, what else could storytellers have set to be making man?earth, wind, water and fire would be the obvious choices.
And in fact, if you look at most creation stories, that's what you get. For example, native amercan myths have the people being cookies, and the oven(fire) finishes them, and then god breathes life into them. It's simply a common alegory based off of soil's inherent ability to produce plant-life. It is then seen as the root of life, rightfully so, and used as such in stories. If anything, this is the first bit of scientific observation, not religion
I agree on that last part because religion and science are complementary. On needs the other
Well then you obviously don't agree about the last part. I said science, NOT religion.
I fail to see how one needs the other. Can you provide some evidence for it(because without that, the science half of the hybrid would be unhapy) or are we supposed to take it on faith(to appease the religion half)?
The maaaany scientists who are atheists would highly disagree with you, I presume. Or even the scientists who buy into NOMA. Taking out thsoe majorities leaves...MIchael Behe and Dembski :) and maybe a few others. And no, this is not an appeal to numbers, this is saying that there are many examples which go against your statement.
As for the rest of the examples before the last paragraph, I presume you have little to say?
the only reason earth DIRT has health value at all is because there is life here. Which is why it's kinda a circular argument of respects. The original DIRT(which would probably just have been crumbled rock), back before life and all would have had little or no beneficial qualities. It was only by dying and rotting or excreting would any lifeforms enrich the DIRT, and thus in a slight way, leave some dust particles.
It's rather strange to equate dust with dirt though. They are not really the same at all.
And if dust represents 'carbon' or whatever the heck, why are the animals not made out of dust? they too are carbon based. More cherry-picking