It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I always took the word "dirt" or dustto mean carbon.

When the bible was written there was no periodic table.

The writer would have to usewords and understanding to his knowledge at the time.

I guess the nearest thing to carbon would be dust or dirt.




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I always took the word "dirt" or dustto mean carbon.

When the bible was written there was no periodic table.

The writer would have to usewords and understanding to his knowledge at the time.

I guess the nearest thing to carbon would be dust or dirt.



When the bible was written they knew nothing about atoms and molecules.

There were only 4 main elements:

Earth - Air - Fire - Water



Adam was created with Earth (matter) and Air (life).

I don't understand what is so complicated about this for you guys?


Even the Jewish story of the Golem is the exact same thing. This homonculus was created using clay (matter/Earth) and given life thanks to a written word (language/words/Air).

If you can't understand these simple symbols, you cannot understand the meaning of myths and stories.




Also dust and carbon are nothing alike. Dust is mineral, carbon is organic.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Develo

Also dust and carbon are nothing alike. Dust is mineral, carbon is organic.


Again you need to look at it from someone from the bronze age.

dust, dirt? does not matter. They would not even know the difference between a mineral and organic matter.

They had no IR Spectrometry or Mass spectrometry. Nor even a periodic table.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Develo

Also dust and carbon are nothing alike. Dust is mineral, carbon is organic.


Again you need to look at it from someone from the bronze age.

dust, dirt? does not matter. They would not even know the difference between a mineral and organic matter.

They had no IR Spectrometry or Mass spectrometry. Nor even a periodic table.


I already explained how someone from the bronze age would see this:

dirt = earth = one of the four elements.

We are talking about a creation myth, you have to look at it from a symbolic point of view, to try to relate this to modern science makes absolutely no sense.

The Egyptian god Atum created the universe by masturbating and jerking off. Are you also trying to relate this myth to modern science?

It's all symbolic, I don't get how can yo not see this!





originally posted by: crazyewok
I always took the word "dirt" or dustto mean carbon.


See what you did there? You project your modern interpretation on someone from the bronze age. It makes no sense.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
actually it does make sense for several reasons.

firstly the faithful believe that God, an omniscient being, dictated the torah to Moses. The only way Moses' knowledge or understanding enters into it is both the limited time and scope of the project meant a simplified version was necessary. Also if Moses's knowledge and understanding were limited so then would be those the books were intended to communicate with.

secondly: linguistically the source documents for the English Bible were written in a language where words have many meanings which a translator has to pick from context and later stress or dicritical punctuation and articles particles and the like. one of the meanings for the word in question is clay literal clay figurative and another is material. The KJV editors were often unsure of their selections and wrote a preface to the bible explaining where that happened and why they selected their version among the possibilities. normally this was legit. sometimes there appears to be some church politics involved.

interestingly the word translated as "rib" for example really means curve or helix. fairly suggestive to us modern types.

another bit of trivia: (check this out) languages east of the caucasus are almost always written right to left and languages west of the caucasus are written left to right.

languages like this are problematic anyway because words in it are composed of ancient often lost root words. a modern analog is japanese, chinese etc. where each "character" means something unrelated to is real everyday understanding to the native.

There is a Japanese woman (a musician and occasional voice actor) whom I follow named Haigou Meiko. the literal meaning of the characters in her name is Township and Worship. and this is why software is crap for translating languages of a similar nature. and that is even worse for ancient languages of a similar nature.
edit on 17-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Man comes from clay. Clay is a crystaline substance so is DNA...

purp..



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is another way of looking at this we CAN show that MAN created god if fact lots of them!

Names of Gods

Strange that this so called super being that created everything
did not even have the ability to get the same beliefs used all over this pale blue dot!

All the gods above were credited in creation stories yet they are ALL different, believing in a god is like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa tell the story often enough the kid believes it until they THINK for themselves.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
If you think it makes sense that man would be 'made' from clay, how then does it make sense to you that a woman was made from a living mans rib bone? (that he then regenerated?)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
If you think it makes sense that man would be 'made' from clay, how then does it make sense to you that a woman was made from a living mans rib bone? (that he then regenerated?)
the word for rib in ancient hebrew also means curve and helix. old eastern languages are weird.

modern eastern languages are weird. is your "bamboo basket decreasing?" "are you hungry?" yesh. bamboo basket is stomach. and the characters used to symbolize the word stomach... never mind. you know peoples names in foreign languages are often composed of characters that have ancient meanings. E.G; Kagamine rin = (yellow or Bright) Phophorus Rin. Yowane Haku means to show white feathers and complaints.

the native speaker doesn't even think of the literal meaning of the characters. software translators and language n0obs can't help it. and even if you are not a language no0b a non native pretty much forever has to think of the literal meaning first. so poor Rin will forever be bright phosphorus to the gaijin weeaboos.
edit on 18-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
We don't, because we can't. Well, if you consoder that before life came into being, the first lfie forms came out o, well, dirt.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
If you think it makes sense that man would be 'made' from clay, how then does it make sense to you that a woman was made from a living mans rib bone? (that he then regenerated?)
transgender males who have a rib removed to better emulate a female torso often find to their dismay that their lower ribs regenerate partially or fully.
edit on 18-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Develo

It has neither been observed or confirmed, you should know better.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal



It has neither been observed or confirmed, you should know better.


Universe expansion and redshifts aren't ones of the observations?

You should know better.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Repeat after me. The data collected thus far supports several theories, one of which is "the big bang". That does not constitute "proof", and nothing is "confirmed".



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

Repeat after me. The evidence supports the Big Bang theory. There are little evidence for other theories though the Oscillating Universe theory has merits.

The evidence confirms the theory.

He is the one who said confirmed so you'll have to ask him what he meant by that.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

But you also claimed that it was untrue that people had observed any of the phenomena supporting the big bang theory. The most likely of the competing theories and hypothesis would be the 'Steady State Theory'. However SST is essentially disproven by one of the observations that indicate BBT is in fact a reality. Here are some of the observations you claim have not occurred that do in fact support BBT. I will agree with you that it is not a 100% proven paradigm or axiom of reality. However, it is the best candidate based on what we currently know, the math and calculations that have been utilized and the more up to date observations.

Redshift of Galaxies

The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.



Microwave Background

Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.



Mixture of Elements

As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.



Looking back in time

The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

My friend, the bible is not meant to be taken literally. Perhaps it's a metaphor or a story to help us understand complex ideas, similar to explaining morals to a child. We are made from dirt is a metaphor for how we are interconnected with the Earth.
edit on 19-3-2015 by buddhism because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I did not say that there is no evidence supporting BBT. What I said is this evidence does not prove BBT. Like creationism, it is a theory (and a much more plausible one at that). It seems like my fellow athiests are too quick to claim they have "proof" for a theory when actually they just have evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. Again, for the (fifth?) time .. evidence that does not contradict a theory is not proof of the theory. In fact, there is no way to prove a theory anywhere outside the realm of mathematics. There, theories (theorems) can be proved absolutely. In the realm of physics, all we have are theories which (hopefully) will not contradict observations made in the future after we're long dead. This is basic stuff, guys.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

Why do it seems that so many people are ignorant about what scientific theory means?

People have explained what scientific theory means many times in many threads and yet some people seem to ignore that.

Creationism is NOT, I repeat, NOT a scientific theory.

Gravitational theory is a scientific theory, for example.
edit on 3/19/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

You present a useless dichotomy. A theory, scientific or non-scientific, cannot be proven. Ever. It only stands until it is disproven by counterexample (again, ignoring the realm of pure mathematics). Even if you insist on dealing only with "scientific" theory, one can define creationism in such a way that it would lend itself to the scientific method.

For instance, one can define creationism as the theory that the universe you observe has been constructed (at some level) by an intelligent being. Perhaps that intelligent being created the preconditions for the big bang. Or perhaps our consciousness is the byproduct of a simulation run on some level we cannot even comprehend. No mention of God, angels, or anything like that. Yes, it's "out there", but then again so is the BBT (no time or space before the bang?). When we frame creationism like this, it is really no different than trying to determine whether a particular rock formation was created by man or "naturally" occurred.

Unfortunately, as in most debates, people become entrenched in certain mindsets because they don't clearly define the words they use (like "scientific", "creationism", "theory", etc). For instance, some would consider paranormal research to be "scientific" because some claim to have captured audio and visual data depicting these things. Others would consider it non-scientific because these tests cannot be replicated. Devil's in the details.




top topics



 
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join