Humans and Stardust

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So when they say you are dust and to dust you shall return, could that be stardust?

Or Adam being formed from clay?
 
Hope1960 said:
So when they say you are dust and to dust you shall return, could that be stardust?
Click to expand...
Don’t think that was meant to be literal. Take it as a metaphor.
Hope1960 said:
Or Adam being formed from clay?
Click to expand...
Again, it’s poetry, not a science textbook. If there’s a conflict, it’s probably just literary freedom and not an actual fact conflict.
 
As to scientists/astronomers, they were stoked about Comet Kohoutek in 1974 - “the comet of the century!”

Not. Comet cleaner made more of an impact on the human race.

Regarding stardust, the only stardust I’m familiar with is the Stardust Cowboy. Out of respect for humanity, I shall not post a link.
 
What does that even mean? What point are you making?

If you’re calling astronomers stupid, perhaps you should take advantage of confession for such pride.
 
Last edited:
I thought you were ignoring me? You are well advised to. The post was relating to the accuracy of scientific predictions. Point: Science has been wrong more often than JW prophecies.
 
I might do so now.

I’d like to see you do anything better than scientists do. Besides, that isn’t even the topic here. No predictions that haven’t panned out. We know pretty solidly that stars fuse heavy elements.
po18guy said:
Point: Science has been wrong more often than JW prophecies.
Click to expand...
Counterpoint: You’re blasting science on a device only possible because of tons of correct predictions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree with the poster who said God created everything so no, there is no contradiction!!!
 
Joni Mitchell’s song lyric reads like this:

We are stardust
We are golden
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

So, I’ve wondered. Which is it? We are stardust. Or, are we golden? Or, are we both? Or, is this song just a vain fantasy?

Getting ourselves back to the Garden (of Eden) sounds like another fantasy. We can’t save ourselves.

Jesus Christ is the Savior.

The tree of life (as once seen in the Garden of Eden) is now in heaven (Revelation 22:2)

The ark of the covenant (as once seen in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) is now in heaven. (Revelation 11:19)

We need to help of Jesus Christ, the Savior, to get us to heaven, He is the Door. He is the Way. No one comes to God the Father except through Him.
 
Last edited:
This thread is unraveling fast. They can’t close the forum soon enough!
 
po18guy said:
Point: Science has been wrong more often than JW prophecies.
Click to expand...
You’re embarrassing yourself.

Science presupposes “being wrong” as a part of the process. It’s forming hypotheses and then ruling them out by having them proved wrong.

There’s a real undercurrent of disdain for learning in this thread. What a clown show this place has become.
 
Nah, I was an Econ-Stats major in college but it’s been over twenty years now =) I’m not going to appeal to authority, but I don’t use or trust wikipedia. I’ve ran a few regressions in my lifetime…but that was before my disability.
 
Nothing you said has anything to do with the fact that you’re raging against well-documented science.
 
Freddy you are a reasonable, man…but the problem is if there ever was an alternative theory (and I’ve seen students with alternative theories grapple with institutions), it would be a threat to the existing paradigm, Scientists would be humbled and out of a job with a loss of credibility, as such it would be suppressed. Hence, Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I approach this strictly from an epistemological point of view. The term, “Stardust,” is reductionist. It’s sensational, romantic, and sounds unprofessional. Furthermore, it has philosophical implications and connotations that humanity is insignificant. That is what is at stake if you adopt their, “Theory.” If people have lost trust in Scientific Institutions, keep in mind this is the most educated period in all of history as of yet, it’s because Scientific Institutions have not been able to adequately respond to objections.

Someone says this thread is devolving. It’s not even a religious thread, and the OP put no effort in starting it. It devolves because I won’t submit to science as an institution that looks more like a dogma than a field of skepticism and inquiry. So, you get all the religious scolding and Fundamentalism from all the irreligious people.

Bah, I’m going to bed, this is why I don’t post very often. Everyone wants the same strawman, you present a unique argument based on experience people get upset.
 
RepetantCatholic said:
Freddy you are a reasonable, man…but the problem is if there ever was an alternative theory it would be a threat to the existing paradigm…
Click to expand...
If there’s an alternative theory and it’s better at explaining the evidence then it becomes the most accepted one. You get short thrift for hanging on to one that obviously doesn’t do the job as well as the previous one.

So if this theory that most matter was formed within stars is something you think doesn’t pass muster, then what is your scientific alternative? If it’s a religiously based one then we’ve all been wasting our time. You should have explained that in your very first post.
 
RepetantCatholic said:
The term, “Stardust,” is reductionist. It’s sensational, romantic, and sounds unprofessional. Furthermore, it has philosophical implications and connotations that humanity is insignificant.
Click to expand...
Romanticism aside, there seems to excellent evidence that heavier elements are formed inside stars, no? There is also excellent evidence stars explode and distribute the material, no?
RepetantCatholic said:
[if I] present a unique argument based on experience people get upset.
Click to expand...
Do you have experience regarding the formation of the heavier elements? Can you share?
 
Last edited:
RepetantCatholic said:
keep in mind this is the most educated period in all of history as of yet
Click to expand...
And yet this forum is swarmed by people who don’t understand the meaning of theory in science, and who argue that science is wrong for no other reason than they don’t like it. No alternative theories, no evidence, just the same conspiracy that scientists would shut down all opposing evidence and that’s why all evidence directly contradicts them.
 
RepetantCatholic said:
Furthermore, it has philosophical implications and connotations that humanity is insignificant.
Click to expand...
“From dust you came and to dust you will return.” Also has implications and connotations that humanity is insignificant. I don’t see the problem here. Materially, we are the same as the Universe around us - why would that be a problem?

“Stardust” does sound romantic and has been used in the popular culture in such a way, but if you read the statement at face value then it’s true. (Or God created the world in a way that it seems to be true.)
 
Unfortunately, some people feel insignificant, when confronted with the incomprehensible vastness of space and time. Some would like a Universe 6000 years old, and the Sun, Moon and the stars to be just lights painted on a dome. Some of those people may find this “existential refuge” in biblical literalism.

It is a natural thing to do, and all people, including non-religious, sometimes try to elevate their significance. They just want to feel special. Even if they aren’t outright young Earth creationists and flat earthers, people still want to act like if the rest of the Universe isn’t really connected to us here, and that we are something else, something special.

In the end, God is omnipotent. I find the unimaginable vastness and complexity of the Universe to proclaim His Glory much more than some lights in the sky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top