What are we made of?

[MarquezsDg]

How do we as Christians reconcile the genesis account of us being formed from the dust of the ground with what others say that we are formed by the dust of exploding stars? Was trying to reconcile the genesis account of how we were formed with a book from Dr Krauss called " a universe from nothing " where he says we are all literally made from stardust. Anybody else read this book? What dust was the bible referring to in the genesis account? Thanks guys God bless

 

[Tim]

We are made from the dust of the earth. The earth was created out of nothing. It was not created out of star dust.

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 (Gen. 2:7).

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Gen. 3:19).

According to Krauss,

The amazing thing is that 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 those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today ("A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 (16:50-17:23))

He is wrong. There is no reconciliation between his comments and the biblical worldview.

 

[Poimen]

From the context it would seem that the dust that God created man from was, indeed, the dust of the ground from the earth that God had previously made, namely the ground from which plants and trees come (vs. 6&9).

I am not at all certain (and in fact I am convinced that it is often quite the opposite) that one must reconcile what God's Word says with man's theories about the origin of the universe. That is, even if some reconciliation can be made, does not imply that reconciliation must be made. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is without a personal, creator God, he has, in the Bible's estimation made himself a fool (see Psalm 14:1). In this case one is not obligated to listen to a fool or follow in his ways. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is by the direct, creative act of God, he has come closer to the truth but is still in no position to claim that man was made from stardust since he cannot know that with absolute certainty.

For remember that scientific research and conclusions are not infallible but mostly present a scholar's opinion or generally received opinion about something without being certain that it is true. Sometimes assumptions are made, for example, that similarity proves a common ancestor but this begs the question. It may be a helpful or useful explanation, but this does not make it true. So may I ask: is there anything similar about stardust and 'earth' dust that may lead one to prefer the one over the other without knowing that for certain? Furthermore, what scientific evidence does he provide? Does it truly contradict the scripture's claim that we are made from the dust of the earth, or is another explanation possible?

 

[MarquezsDg]

Thanks for the quick responses guys. That is basically my question is there a difference between earth dust and star dust? Is our earth dust a product of a star exploding within the 6 day creation the scriptures tea h us?

 

[py3ak]

No - the earth was made before the stars (cf. Genesis 1:1,10,16). It doesn't mean they weren't made out of the same elements, however, or that stars don't manufacture more of what is in the earth.

 

[Poimen]

It is logically coherent to say that star dust and earth dust contain (basically) the same components (carbon etc.) since they were made by the same creator. However I don't think that Genesis 1 or 2 give us any warrant to believe that the earth dust was made from star dust as the land from which man was formed came out of the sea as per God's direction (Genesis 1:9). So there may be a formal connection (both elements formed by the same creator) but not a causal connection (the one being directly formed from the other).

 

[jwithnell]

When these theories come along, I think it's critical to return to the message of Genesis: God created all things out of nothing and declared it good. Man was created in God's image and chose -- through a specific, historical human being -- to rebel against his creator. What does junk DNA tell us? What do black holes tell us? Possibly a little bit about the world as it exists now. But it does not, and cannot, teach us the elemental starting point of the gospel: that we are beholden to our creator. Hypotheticals, especially when discussed with good friends over a bottle of wine, can be fun, but don't invest too much attention.

 

[Peairtach]

The idea of "evolution" has been extended from biological evolution to the evolution of the universe and matter, including the materials of the ground.

But with biological evolution the mechanism of natural selection is posited. I presume that because no natural selection can be posited in the formation of the universe, stars, elements, solar systems, and planets, including Earth, pure chance - yet in accordance with the laws of nature - without natural selection is posited?

Of course natural selection - as posited by atheistic evolutionists - still is a type of pure chance cloaked with verbiage.

To the extent that natural selection really does happen in this world that "groans and travails in pain together" (Rom 8:22), and it is much less than the atheistic or theistic evolutionists maintain, the creationist would maintain that it is all in God's providence.

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (Matt 10:29, ESV)

 

[Rom]

The funny thing about that quote is that while it tries to make humans feel special by saying they are made out of stardust, it really reduces them to nothing special at all. In their view, the same is true of the cockroach. It too is made of stardust from a dead star. Very poetic indeed!

In contrast, the Son of God - the Creator of the Universe died for my sins - not the sins of a cockroach. Though I'm curious to see what happens to roaches in the New Heavens and the New Earth!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't know what I'm made of but my boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dogs tails...

 

[OPC'n]

I don't know what I'm made of but my boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dogs tails...

lol and what about your girls?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

I don't know what I'm made of but my boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dogs tails...

In the same vein and following the adage that you are what you eat, I'm composed primarily of bacon, pizza, and Diet Dr. Pepper.

 

[Zach]

When these theories come along, I think it's critical to return to the message of Genesis: God created all things out of nothing and declared it good. Man was created in God's image and chose -- through a specific, historical human being -- to rebel against his creator. What does junk DNA tell us? What do black holes tell us? Possibly a little bit about the world as it exists now. But it does not, and cannot, teach us the elemental starting point of the gospel: that we are beholden to our creator. Hypotheticals, especially when discussed with good friends over a bottle of wine, can be fun, but don't invest too much attention.

I think this is wise advice. We should start with what is very clearly taught in God's word about Creation. At the Ligonier Conference, when asked about the age of the Universe, R.C. Sproul Jr. stated that the problem with much of our discussions about Genesis 1 and 2 is that we trust in Science, whether we are Old or Young Earth, rather than trusting what the Word of God says about Creation. Our question should always be: What does the word of God say?

 

[Supersillymanable]

I'd just like to interject a question here, as I have pondered it for several years.

I have never had an theological problem with OEC, or YEC. I have a huge problem with evolution, theistic or otherwise, as it has serious theological implications, which I have never seen anyone overcome with any real integrity. So with that said, is a literal reading of Chapter 1 of Genesis, simply the 7 days of creation, necessary? MUST we interpret it completely literally?

I am of the opinion that all other sciences must bow to theology. If our faith rest on man's arguments and we simply bend scripture to fit the current trend of thought in science, then we have gone seriously wrong. We will shipwreck our faith. But when science shows us something incredible, which can quite easily fit with scripture, must we insist on a literal interpretation regardless?

 

[MarquezsDg]

guys thanks for the responses. Science is not my thing but i do find it intresting and do believe everything goes back to our Lord. So then the earth came before stars? (there were no stars at all right? which goes against what unbelievers say is backward in saying that we and our planet are the result of dying stars. Gen. tells us the earth came first correct? Krauss is arguing that stars came first and stars died ,exploded whatever you want to call it and our solar system and us and everything in it is the result? Am i understanding the argument right?