Humans and Stardust

[neophyte]

I do not know what to say that will convince you that you’re wrong.

That’s probably because I’m not. You don’t have to have an alternate theory in order to reject one that you know is wrong.

 

[Greenfields]

Greenfields:

Freddy:

Hope1960:

Scientists say humans are made from stardust. This contradicts Genesis. Can Catholics believe we’re made of stardust?

Also does anyone have names of reputable scientists who say this is bunk?

Genesis says we’re made from earth. The earth was made from elements that were formed in stars. The stars were made by condensing gases. The gases were formed from processes started with the big bang. The big bang was…oh, what the heck. There’s only a few days left. Why am I replying to this?

Go on,and the Big Bang came from ?

We don’t know. We can’t investigate back that far. In the original post I was going to say: The big bang was…the start of those processes.

Edit: which I actually did already.

Something can’t come from nothing .

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You don’t have to have an alternate theory in order to reject one that you know is wrong.

So then, what should scientists do? How are they going to explain the very obvious presence of heavy elements in the universe?

It also doesn’t help that nobody has explained why it’s wrong…

 

[neophyte]

So then, what should scientists do? How are they going to explain the very obvious presence of heavy elements in the universe?

There’s a very good explanation for it: they’re the result of nuclear fusion within stellar cores.

But that has nothing to do with the narrow point I’m making.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

There’s a very good explanation for it: they’re the result of nuclear fusion within stellar cores.

Not according to the poster in question. They’re telling scientists that their theory is wrong (without explanation) and not providing any insight on a viable alternative. Basically, they feel that the science should just die there.

 

[neophyte]

Not according to the poster in question. They’re telling scientists that their theory is wrong (without explanation) and not providing any insight on a viable alternative.

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I’m making.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

So what are you even saying, then?

 

[neophyte]

So what are you even saying, then?

I’ve been absolutely clear on that, but once again:

Freddy said

It’s not really possible to reject a theory unless you have a better one.

Freddy is absolutely wrong about that.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

@hope1960 It is a shame that some people have left your original, honest questions in the dust.

. . . .

There’s a reason we’re told not to engage with scrupulous people on substance; because it feeds their compulsion to seek reassurance on the internet. The same rules should apply here.

. . . .

 

[Freddy]

The fact we can even coherently ask “Why” implies the question does make sense. Even if the answer is “No reason”; it’s still an intelligible response to an intelligible question.

Asking the question assumes that there must be an answer. Some of us don’t believe there is one. So asking the question makes no sense.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Even in that case, you can’t say a question doesn’t have an answer if the question doesn’t make sense as a question - the question must be intelligible to even lack an answer. It’s not that people don’t understand what the question means - they do, they just say there isn’t any answer and reality is at bottom nonsense.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

We don’t know. We can’t investigate back that far. In the original post I was going to say: The big bang was…the start of those processes.

Edit: which I actually did already.

Something can’t come from nothing .

That sounds entirely logical. Just like a father can’t be younger than his daughter. And something can be in two places at the same time.

Logic fails us all too often. Notwithstanding that I didn’t make that claim.

 

[Freddy]

Even in that case, you can’t say a question doesn’t have an answer if the question doesn’t make sense as a question - the question must be intelligible to even lack an answer.

Almost any question is intelligible. What’s north of the north pole is intelligible. But it doesn’t make sense to ask it if you know there’s no answer. So the question: Why I am here? is intelligible. But it makes as much sense to me to actually ask it as it would br for me to ponder why I can fly.

 

[NormalBeliever]

In that case, the key assumption would be that there is no reason for why we are here. But why positively assume that rather than be agnostic and say we don’t know and maybe can’t ever know?

Though really, in real life we don’t usually consider this answer seriously - for example, the door you’re about to open could have instantly and for no reason been replaced with a hologram so that your hand will pass through it. Nonsense could have happened.

But ideas like this aren’t really actionable - or rather they paralyse life and action. The only time people consider nonsense a possibility is when it comes to the meaning of reality’s existence, or the continued existence of things at every moment.

 

[Freddy]

In that case, the key assumption would be that there is no reason for why we are here. But why positively assume that rather than be agnostic and say we don’t know and maybe can’t ever know?

I can’t know that you are actually reading this sentence. But I’ll assume so. Because we have to take life as we see it. So do I believe in God? No, I don’t. And I live my life as if He doen’t exist. Could I be wrong? Yes, I could. But you could be a part of some AI programme as well.

You can’t doubt everything. You need to draw a line in the sand more often than not. So without a deity, with everything being a result of natural processes, the fact that I am here is happenstance. A lucky throw of the celestial dice. So I know the how. But to ask why is somewhat nonsensical.

 

[Gorgias]

As to scientists/astronomers, they were stoked about Comet Kohoutek in 1974 - “the comet of the century!”

WOW… I haven’t heard that mentioned in… well… 45 years!

Hope1960:

Does the fact we’re made from stardust contradict Genesis?

Don’t see how it would. God created everything, and created us by designing the universe such that stars would live and die and create different elements, all of which would wind up here for Him to create living things.

And, let’s not forget that the Genesis account itself says that humans weren’t created “ex nihilo”, but from the earth.

What bothers me about the “from stardust” claims is that it’s really just an attempt to tug at heart-strings with pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. “You’re one with the universe!”, it proclaims. “Look at the night sky and realize that what you see is what you are!”, it promises.

Meh. (Or, maybe more appropriately for this time of year: Bah! What utter humbug!)

The stuff I’m made of isn’t the stuff that’s in the skies. (Sure, similar processes made that stuff as made my stuff, at least on the atomic level.)

But, to claim “I’m all stardust!!!” is kinda silly, IMNSHO.

There’s a real undercurrent of disdain for learning in this thread.

Nah. On the other hand, a “real undercurrent of disdain for eastern-mysticism-masquerading-as-pop-science”? Oh, yeah. There’s definitely that!

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.

So, here’s the thing. The folks who tend to spout the “you’re made of stardust” narrative are, as I see it, generally doing so in an attempt to undermine the notion of God as creator. In other words, it’s a cutesy attempt to say “despite what you’ve been told, you weren’t made by God – you were made by physical processes in the center of stars.”

(Does this help explain ‘origins’? Not really. You then merely have to ask “OK, then… who created stars? Who created physical processes?”)

So, if there is any pushback to the “stardust” meme from Christians, it’s because (again, IMNSHO) it seems to be a (rather lame, and very pop-science-tripe-filled) attempt to distract folks from the real question – how might we come to grips with identifying the ‘first mover’?

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.

On the other hand, there are certainly those who argue against spiritual realities for no other reason than empirical science cannot address it.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Well that just seems like circular reasoning or question begging - knowing the how doesn’t make a why nonsensical. One can ignore the why because one focuses on the how, but that’s not really dealing with the why. And it’s not as if denying God’s existence is obvious common sense either.

And nonsense is a genie that can’t just be put back into the bottle again.

 

[Freddy]

Well that just seems like circular reasoning or question begging - knowing the how doesn’t make a why nonsensical. One can ignore the why because one focuses on the how, but that’s not really dealing with the why. And it’s not as if denying God’s existence is obvious common sense either.

I’m sure you know the how and the why. But the why needs God. It makes no sense without Him. There is then no purpose. Some people have a problem with that.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Well it’s not so much that the why needs God, as much as that it leads to Him when we think about what it entails.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Nah.

Yeah, the people flippantly dismissing the reality of heavy element fusion are all in my head.