The Stars died so we could live?

[TheoloJer]

I’m not sure if this was covered in a preexisting thread, but I remember looking online and learned about a quote from Lawrence M. Krauss in which he says the following:

*“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today.”*

Here, at this last statement, I’m thinking-- ‘ummm…no? Jesus died for us so he could conquer sin. I’m pretty sure his mission had nothing to do with the stars of the universe.’

Now I’m not trying to sound anti-Scientific, this does sound like an interesting theory of how our atoms came to be. But doesn’t the end statement sound much like he’s trying to preclude his belief over ours?

I could use a little scientific pick me up if nobody minds.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Apart from the poetry of the proposition, it is nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. This premise belongs in the realm of science fiction, not fact. It is a typical argument of a pretentious athiest that one usually finds amongst college sophmores who have only a smattering of knowledge.
Anyone who had learned what he was taught about science in high school would find this laughable.

 

[Francie3]

And where did the atoms that made up the stars come from if what claimed is correct?

 

[Nigel7]

Through Jesus Christ all things were made, and the heavens set in motion. He created the stars which exploded (super nova) to provide the elements which make up our bodies.

Therefor, Mr. Lawrence M. Krauss, without Jesus Christ then there would be no stars in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

This seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Yes, he’s an atheist, and he made these comments at a conference of atheists. But, really, all he was doing was riffing on the saying “Jesus died for you”. His point has nothing to do with Jesus; rather, he’s simply pointing out that, at the Big Bang, there weren’t all the elements that exist today – rather, they developed out of the Big Bang and over time. So, in a way, he’s right: it seems rather poetic that we’re made of the stuff of the universe.

However, as others here have pointed out, the question that this formulation raises is where the Big Bang came from. If we’re made of stars, what made the stars themselves?

In the end, it’s just a pithy comment, made to play to a specific audience, and in the context of a talk about cosmology. He’s not attempting to make a proof of atheism over against Christianity. No, he’s just trying to be funny.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Apart from the poetry of the proposition, it is nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. This premise belongs in the realm of science fiction, not fact. It is a typical argument of a pretentious athiest that one usually finds amongst college sophmores who have only a smattering of knowledge.
Anyone who had learned what he was taught about science in high school would find this laughable.

Atheists are known for poetry with no basis in scientific fact?

Isn’t that true of most faith statements?

 

[cornbread_r2]

We are stardust.
Billion year old carbon.
We are golden…
Caught in the devil’s bargain
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.​

• Joni Mitchell

 

[JerryZ]

Apart from the poetry of the proposition, it is nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. This premise belongs in the realm of science fiction, not fact. It is a typical argument of a pretentious athiest that one usually finds amongst college sophmores who have only a smattering of knowledge.
Anyone who had learned what he was taught about science in high school would find this laughable.

:Uhmm: Actually the science is correct. That all the elements present in our bodies and in the rest of the universe were made inside stars.
At the beginning of time (Just after the Big Bang) there were no elements present (Iron, Carbon, Oxigen, etc). The universe has been expanding ever since that event.
There was a soup of the contituents parts of every possible element, the building blocks of the atoms (protons, Neutrons, electrons).

After the universe cooled enough the simplest element which is Hidrogen appeared (made of 1 proton and 1 electron).

When enough Hidrogen was present and it pooled at places where the gravitational force atracted the Hidrogen to, the 1st stars appeared. By the way the universe was smaller in size that what it is today.
They where ultra massive stars that after burning all their Hidrogen switched to burn Helium which is the byproduct of the fusion of Hidrogen (our own sun burns Hidrogen and produces Helium).
After most of the Helium was used up these stars switched again to burn Oxygen (the byproduct of the Helium fusion) and so and so forth until all the elements that are now in the universe were built up. It is poetic in several aspects.

First and foremost there is a principle in phisics called “entropy” which measures the amount of decay or disorganization in a system as the system moves continually from order to chaos.
There are many tests done that prove this principle.
However our universe managed to produce from the very simple 1 simple Hidrogen atom very complex and “intelligent life”.

reasons.org/articles/entropy-of-the-universe

Now we need to understand that the universe started as a huge humongous explosion. and you can’t get any more chaotic process than that and yet here we are. There is no logical explanation for that. From total chaos to us and the process it took just compounds the improbability of it all.

 

[St_Francis]

Krauss also included that statement in his book. The stars obviously did not die because they were never alive. They did not “die” for us, either, except insofar as God had that end for them in mind, since they are inanimate.

Here is a talk you might be interested in: the priest discusses Krauss and his book towards the end with a very good lead-in to that discussion. I learned a lot

Don’t be fooled by his everyday way of talking: this priest is highly educated both in the subjects priests study and in the sciences.

 

[anruari]

*“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today.”*

The only problem with the above quotation is that last sentence.

so many people claim to be “Scientist” and then make these ridiculous unproven, unscientific conclusions to support a belief in Athiesm, when the science they are leaning on shows nothing of the sort.

from the bible: God made man out of Dust. God made the dust from the Void.
from Nuclear Physics: man is formed from dust which was in turn formed in the hearts of dying stars. they were formed from the Void that existed before the Big Bang.

There is NO contradiction between Christianity and science here.
there is a HUGE contradiction between Atheism and Science.

This is not a problem with Religion
It’s a problem with people claiming that Militant Atheism is not a system of belief. It is in fact a Religion. - just one which is non theistic and non deistic.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Now I’m not trying to sound anti-Scientific, this does sound like an interesting theory of how our atoms came to be. But doesn’t the end statement sound much like he’s trying to preclude his belief over ours?

He is referring to nucleosynthesis, which is a process that occurs both naturally and in collides in which the nuclei of atoms can be put together or broken apart to make other atoms (think of some one putting together something with LEGOs and taking them apart). Stellar Nucleosynthesis produces elements up to Iron in the periodic table of elements. Elements heavier than that are produce in super nova nucleosynthesis.

The processes that rearrange atoms don’t imply whether or not there was a Jesus. So I wouldn’t worry about his conclusion on Jesus too much.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Apart from the poetry of the proposition, it is nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. This premise belongs in the realm of science fiction, not fact. It is a typical argument of a pretentious athiest that one usually finds amongst college sophmores who have only a smattering of knowledge.
Anyone who had learned what he was taught about science in high school would find this laughable.

The material that we have on this green planet are indeed the result of stellar and supernova nucleosynthesis (the name of the process by which new, heavier particles are produced from lighter particles). Krauss is correct that the origins of our atomic constituents do indeed come from stars, but he is completely incorrect on our ‘need’ to ‘forget Jesus.’

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure if this was covered in a preexisting thread, but I remember looking online and learned about a quote from Lawrence M. Krauss in which he says the following:

*“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today.”*

Here, at this last statement, I’m thinking-- ‘ummm…no? Jesus died for us so he could conquer sin. I’m pretty sure his mission had nothing to do with the stars of the universe.’

Now I’m not trying to sound anti-Scientific, this does sound like an interesting theory of how our atoms came to be. But doesn’t the end statement sound much like he’s trying to preclude his belief over ours?

I could use a little scientific pick me up if nobody minds.

TheoloJer, welcome to CAF!

I’m sort of a lunatic when it comes to the proper use of words. In Krauss’ third paragraph, he used the word “created” equivocally. He should have used, “caused.” Had used that word, and dropped his last sentence, he would have been acceptably correct. Except, in his next sentence, he anthropomorphizes the stars being “kind.”

Had he a decent understanding of the idiom, he might not lean so heavily toward no God.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m not sure if this was covered in a preexisting thread, but I remember looking online and learned about a quote from Lawrence M. Krauss in which he says the following:

*“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today.”*

Here, at this last statement, I’m thinking-- ‘ummm…no? Jesus died for us so he could conquer sin. I’m pretty sure his mission had nothing to do with the stars of the universe.’

Now I’m not trying to sound anti-Scientific, this does sound like an interesting theory of how our atoms came to be. But doesn’t the end statement sound much like he’s trying to preclude his belief over ours?

I could use a little scientific pick me up if nobody minds.

I remember learning about stellar evolution as a physics major in college. However the extrapolation from heavier atoms being made within the interior of larger stars and the statement of forgetting Jesus is absurd.

 

[Giants]

Methinks people are taking this all a bit too literally. Krauss is not trying to draw any sort of if-then connection between our origins from the chemical reactions within stars and the fact of whether Christ existed or had the ability to forgive our sins, or did so.

 

[JimG]

The science is reasonable enough, but the part about “so forget Jesus,” is simply a non-sequitur.

 

[dshix]

I’m not sure if this was covered in a preexisting thread, but I remember looking online and learned about a quote from Lawrence M. Krauss in which he says the following:

*“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today.”*

Here, at this last statement, I’m thinking-- ‘ummm…no? Jesus died for us so he could conquer sin. I’m pretty sure his mission had nothing to do with the stars of the universe.’

Now I’m not trying to sound anti-Scientific, this does sound like an interesting theory of how our atoms came to be. But doesn’t the end statement sound much like he’s trying to preclude his belief over ours?

I could use a little scientific pick me up if nobody minds.

I’m sure other have already said this, but here goes.

As a matter of fact, there is very deep (and well proven) data to prove that this is true; many parts of our body came from a supernova (which exploded due to the fact that it ran out of matter of do fusion with which stopped the balance between fusion and gravity) and from supernovas come all the heavy elements such as gold or platinum.

However, the thesis which he makes (that there is no Jesus) is completely unfounded; for even if the supernova is where we came from, where’d the star come from?

UHHHH…

EDIT: Looking back on the thread, I now see others have already said a good deal of this.