Science and Bible proves man made of the dust of the ground.

[MorningGlory]

1 minute ago, Bonky said:

You may misunderstand my motives.  I'm not trying to change Tristen [or anyone else's] mind, I'm merely explaining my position.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question other than maybe Genesis and man being made from the "dust" of the ground.

Well my question was just about as clear as I could type it.  I asked your opinion of the topic; you know, the reason why this thread was started. 

[Bonky]

9 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Well my question was just about as clear as I could type it.  I asked your opinion of the topic; you know, the reason why this thread was started. 

Look at Tristens response [first page], I think he/she nailed it.  Secular scientists also believe we're made of the elements we're surrounded with.    I wanted to add if we were made of something different that no other organism was made of then THAT would be compelling.  It would actually make us a separate creation from the rest of the animal kingdom.   

Edited December 26, 2017 by Bonky

[MorningGlory]

12 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Look at Tristens response [first page], I think he/she nailed it.  Secular scientists also believe we're made of the elements we're surrounded with.    I wanted to add if we were made of something different that no other organism was made of then THAT would be compelling.  It would actually make us a separate creation from the rest of the animal kingdom.   

Man IS a separate creation, Bonky.  We share the composition of our bodies with everything that God created but man has a soul.  We, humans, were made in God's image.

[one.opinion]

36 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Why do you think the human body mirrors the composition of the Earth's crust?

I completely believe in God as Creator. However, the fact that livings things are composed of the same elements we see in the earth’s crust is no proof of that. What else would living things be made of other than the building blocks that are readily available?

[MorningGlory]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I completely believe in God as Creator. However, the fact that livings things are composed of the same elements we see in the earth’s crust is no proof of that. What else would living things be made of other than the building blocks that are readily available?

Would all beings HAVE to be composed of readily available elements?  God is the creator of the Universe and not constrained by anything; He could have made us of Play Doh if He had wished.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Would all beings HAVE to be composed of readily available elements?  God is the creator of the Universe and not constrained by anything; He could have made us of Play Doh if He had wished.

True enough, I’m just saying the composition of living things is quite limited as proof of God’s creative work.

[HAZARD]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

True enough, I’m just saying the composition of living things is quite limited as proof of God’s creative work.

From a study of all Scriptures and especially those on the creation of all things, it is clear that by the Word of God the materials were brought into existence, and then by His hands He formed the materials into the various parts of the universe. That is, God spoke, the materials came into existence and as fast as they materialised He used them to form all things with His hands (Ps. 8:3; 2 Pet. 3:3-9. Prov. 26:10). He used the dust of the Earth to make man; 

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.

[MorningGlory]

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

True enough, I’m just saying the composition of living things is quite limited as proof of God’s creative work.

I understand what you are saying, one, but for most of us it is ANOTHER proof.  After all, who else could have created us from the same elements as the Earth besides God?

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, Bonky said:

I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities.   I think you're betraying your own advice potentially.   There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe.  I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution.   There are so many things that we've discovered in the natural world that are bizarre, crazy, weird, etc etc.   What else could there be that we have absolutely no clue about yet?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.

Hey Bonky,

“I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities. I think you're betraying your own advice potentially.”

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I think I have given thorough (perhaps too thorough) consideration of every argument presented too me. No one can claim pure objectivity, but I have endeavoured to be fair in my responses. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I operate under a bias, and that maybe there is something I have overlooked.

 

“There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe.”

And it is equally “premature” to assume a purely naturalistic universe. But these are not conclusions to our arguments, these are the premises of our arguments. Christians don't “toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations” of facts. Everyone (not just Christians) starts with a faith premise defining the nature of ultimate reality. That premise influences how we interpret the facts.

Faith is necessarily incorporated into every aspect of the search for knowledge – regardless of which position we hold. Even the idea that natural observation can be trusted is a faith assumption. And even greater faith is required when we can't observe the things we are claiming. Without faith, there is no framework through which to interpret the facts. They just are what they are, and can't tell us anything beyond that (and even that assumes we can trust our natural observations).

So for Christians, “supernatural explanations” which are explicit in the Bible (the Christian premise) are not the conclusions, but merely one of several possible starting premises necessary for investigation (including naturalism or atheism). If “supernatural explanations” fall outside of the Bible, they fall into the god-of-the-gaps category – which are logically weak conclusions (i.e. tossing “our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations”), but still not necessarily irrational.

 

“I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution.”

They only way to interpret facts to give knowledge of the past is to apply faith assumptions. Until you can quantify why your faith assumptions are more valid than mine, I don't think you can justify claims of greater “humility and caution”. Such criteria only applies to the foundational premise – because the rest of our methodology is the same (I.e we generate models based on interpreting the facts through the lens of our premise, then compare subsequent facts to see if they can be interpreted to be consistent with the model).

 

“I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.”

But if we are restricted by naturalistic assumptions, there are aspects of reality we can't even begin to consider as targets of investigation.

[Bonky]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I think I have given thorough (perhaps too thorough) consideration of every argument presented too me. No one can claim pure objectivity, but I have endeavoured to be fair in my responses. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I operate under a bias, and that maybe there is something I have overlooked.

The point I was getting at was that you were essentially alluding to the idea that the natural world doesn't offer us enough answers [alone at least] to satisfy these great mysteries we have.  I'm saying we don't even know enough about the natural world to make this kind of claim.  You have no problem speaking of the Universe as a deep, dark, mysterious place that could be full of unknown wonders [speed of light/decay rate fluxuations] but in this context suddenly the natural world is limited and lame.

When it comes to mystical, religious, supernatural explanations I don't trust us humans to navigate any such thing whatsoever.  All we have is essentially speculation.  These views come in every sort of flavor, color, shape and size the world over.  Doesn't that kind of tell us we really don't have a clue?  So I get the idea of pondering these things or speculating, but building a foundation on this view that is then made "infallible" is just too much.