1. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    17 Nov '10 14:331 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok, why dont we talk about the fall of Tyre then 🙂
    Because i picked this topic, you want to debate that start your own thread.

    Look Rob, i don't doubt the Bible has some historical accuracy to it and have never denied as such. 'A broken clock tells the correct time twice a day'.

    Back to the topic of the thread. Do you have any archaeological or 'true' science, as you claimed, to back up the Biblical account of Adam & Eve as you believe it?
  2. Standard membergalveston75
    Texasman
    San Antonio Texas
    Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    78672
    17 Nov '10 14:33
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I don't even know if *you* exists, but that is besides the point. This thread is about the existance of Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago, not about you, nor me.

    Let's stay on topic.
    I believe I am on topic but you have no answer to a logical and fair question...
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    17 Nov '10 14:441 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Because i picked this topic, you want to debate that start your own thread.

    Look Rob, i don't doubt the Bible has some historical accuracy to it and have never denied as such. 'A broken clock tells the correct time twice a day'.

    Back to the topic of the thread. Do you have any archaeological or 'true' science, as you claimed, to back up the Biblical account of Adam & Eve as you believe it?
    Ok seeing that i like you despite your deprivations, the creation of Adam is entirely harmonious with both science and scripture, the inspired account state,

    (Genesis 2:7) . . .And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground . . .


    The table below gives the amount of each chemical element found in the human body, from most to least abundant. For each element, there is the amount in mass units in an average (70-kilogram) person, the volume of the element, and the length of the side of a cube that would contain that amount of the pure element. Volumes of solid and liquid elements are based on density at or near room temperature (where available). For the gaseous elements (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, and fluorine), I chose to use the density of each in the liquid state at the respective boiling point.

    Raw data from which this table was made are from Emsley, John, The Elements, 3rd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. This is a great trove of information, which I highly recommend for anyone wishing to learn more about the elements.

    oxygen 43 kg 37 L 33.5 cm
    carbon 16 kg 7.08 L 19.2 cm
    hydrogen 7 kg 98.6 L 46.2 cm
    nitrogen 1.8 kg 2.05 L 12.7 cm
    calcium 1.0 kg 645 mL 8.64 cm
    phosphorus 780 g 429 mL 7.54 cm
    potassium 140 g 162 mL 5.46 cm
    sulfur 140 g 67.6 mL 4.07 cm
    sodium 100 g 103 mL 4.69 cm
    chlorine 95 g 63 mL 3.98 cm
    magnesium 19 g 10.9 mL 2.22 cm
    iron 4.2 g 0.53 mL 8.1 mm
    fluorine 2.6 g 1.72 mL 1.20 cm
    zinc 2.3 g 0.32 mL 6.9 mm
    silicon 1.0 g 0.43 mL 7.5 mm
    rubidium 0.68 g 0.44 mL 7.6 mm
    strontium 0.32 g 0.13 mL 5.0 mm
    bromine 0.26 g 64.2 µL 4.0 mm
    lead 0.12 g 10.6 µL 2.2 mm
    copper 72 mg 8.04 µL 2.0 mm
    aluminum 60 mg 22 µL 2.8 mm
    cadmium 50 mg 5.78 µL 1.8 mm
    cerium 40 mg 4.85 µL 1.7 mm
    barium 22 mg 6.12 µL 1.8 mm
    iodine 20 mg 4.06 µL 1.6 mm
    tin 20 mg 3.48 µL 1.5 mm
    titanium 20 mg 4.41 µL 1.6 mm
    boron 18 mg 7.69 µL 2.0 mm
    nickel 15 mg 1.69 µL 1.2 mm
    selenium 15 mg 3.13 µL 1.5 mm
    chromium 14 mg 1.95 µL 1.3 mm
    manganese 12 mg 1.61 µL 1.2 mm
    arsenic 7 mg 1.21 µL 1.1 mm
    lithium 7 mg 13.1 µL 2.4 mm
    cesium 6 mg 3.2 µL 1.5 mm
    mercury 6 mg 0.44 µL 0.8 mm
    germanium 5 mg 0.94 µL 1.0 mm
    molybdenum 5 mg 0.49 µL 0.8 mm
    cobalt 3 mg 0.34 µL 0.7 mm
    antimony 2 mg 0.30 µL 0.7 mm
    silver 2 mg 0.19 µL 0.6 mm
    niobium 1.5 mg 0.18 µL 0.6 mm
    zirconium 1 mg 0.15 µL 0.54 mm
    lanthanium 0.8 mg 0.13 µL 0.51 mm
    gallium 0.7 mg 0.12 µL 0.49 mm
    tellurium 0.7 mg 0.11 µL 0.48 mm
    yttrium 0.6 mg 0.13 µL 0.51 mm
    bismuth 0.5 mg 51 nL 0.37 mm
    thallium 0.5 mg 42 nL 0.35 mm
    indium 0.4 mg 55 nL 0.38 mm
    gold 0.2 mg 10 nL 0.22 mm
    scandium 0.2 mg 67 nL 0.41 mm
    tantalum 0.2 mg 12 nL 0.23 mm
    vanadium 0.11 mg 18 nL 0.26 mm
    thorium 0.1 mg 8.5 nL 0.20 mm
    uranium 0.1 mg 5.3 nL 0.17 mm
    samarium 50 µg 6.7 nL 0.19 mm
    beryllium 36 µg 20 nL 0.27 mm
    tungsten 20 µg 1.0 nL 0.10 mm
    Notes

    Oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth's crust and in the body. The body's 43 kilograms of oxygen is found mostly as a component of water, which makes up 70% of total body weight. Oxygen is also an integral component of all proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), carbohydrates, and fats.

    Rubidium is the most abundant element in the body (0.68 g) that has no known biological role (silicon, which is slightly more abundant, may or may not have a metabolic function).

    Vanadium is the body's least abundant element (0.11 mg) that has a known biologic role, followed by cobalt (3 mg), the latter being a constituent of vitamin B12.

    you will now state dear Noobster why oxygen is the most abundant element in the earths surface and also in the body, a coincidence that the writer of Genesis happened to fluke, hardly a proper explanation, is it, therefore you shall explain, why it is not scientifically accurate or you shall publicly admit that in the case of the creation of Adam, the Bible is scientifically accurate based on the elements which make up the human body.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    17 Nov '10 14:52
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just a personal observation and my opinion only, but I have to ask, why are you guys ( atheist ) here in the Spiritual forum? I know it's open to any and all and that's great I guess but it seems to me by posting stuff like this your here to do nothing more then to try tear down our Faith and our belief in God and the Bible which he has given mankind.
    ...[text shortened]... dering what your trying to accomplish? If it's to break my faith..it ain't gonna happen.
    spirituality doesn't mean we must all agree. what would be the point of a forum then?

    would you find a forum with 1post threads enjoyable? where anything exceeeding that first post is "yes, i agree" "yes, you are right". even if atheists wouldn't come here, you disagree with muslims, jews, hindus, etc too. would they have to agree with you too to have a right to post here? does spirituality mean the belief in the christian god and nothing else? can an atheist not be spiritual?
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    17 Nov '10 15:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok seeing that i like you despite your deprivations, the creation of Adam is entirely harmonious with both science and scripture, the inspired account state,

    (Genesis 2:7) . . .And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground . . .


    The table below gives the amount of each chemical element found in the human body, from mo ...[text shortened]... dam, the Bible is scientifically accurate based on the elements which make up the human body.
    what does this prove? where in the bible does it say the chemical composition of humans? are you saying this proves humans were made of dirt? explain.

    yes, oxygen is very abundant both in the earth's crust and the human body. hardly surprising. why isn't silicon more abundant in the human body? dirt is made 60% of SiO2, why isn't there such an overwhelming proportion of silicon in the human body? how about aluminum? 60mg in the human body while the crust of the earth is composed 16% of Al2O3.

    You surely can't be so oblivious to the facts as to take 1 element, see that it matches both the scientifical accounts and the bibilical claim and call it definitive proof, then go home and watch cartoons, claiming you have prooved genesis is real. what about all the other elements?

    if you claim that biblical account must be true based on oxygen being the most abundant element in dirt and in the human body, i claim that human beings were created from water. it even make more sense since my theory doesn't involve water getting changed in any way, you just add some more ingredients and presto! human.
  6. Standard memberKellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157646
    17 Nov '10 15:15
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,

    the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

    If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.

    Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
    The Bible does not state in it, it is true, I believe the Book of Mormon makes
    that claim. The 66 different books in the Bible are all stand alone scriptures
    that have been compiled into one book, the Bible. Genesis the first book does
    not come out and say, this is true, it simply states, "In the beginning God..."
    you can take or leave it after that.
    Kelly
  7. Standard membergalveston75
    Texasman
    San Antonio Texas
    Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    78672
    17 Nov '10 15:19
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    spirituality doesn't mean we must all agree. what would be the point of a forum then?

    would you find a forum with 1post threads enjoyable? where anything exceeeding that first post is "yes, i agree" "yes, you are right". even if atheists wouldn't come here, you disagree with muslims, jews, hindus, etc too. would they have to agree with you too to have a ...[text shortened]... ty mean the belief in the christian god and nothing else? can an atheist not be spiritual?
    Well it seems that most atheist here are just looking to condemn ones who believe in the Bible. I have yet to see a post by them that is nothing different. No honest questions in reguards to learning or inquiring but just how silly we are to have "faith."
    I guess that's life but sad that they'll never get it...
  8. Standard memberKellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157646
    17 Nov '10 15:20
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,

    the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

    If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.

    Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
    With respect to evidence to show they were real, what kind of evidence do you
    think we should see, dating the earth not withstanding, since they could be
    real and the dates could be off.
    Kelly
  9. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    17 Nov '10 15:25
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok seeing that i like you despite your deprivations, the creation of Adam is entirely harmonious with both science and scripture, the inspired account state,

    (Genesis 2:7) . . .And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground . . .

    ...

    [b]Oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth's crust and in the body.
    The b ...[text shortened]... Adam, the Bible is scientifically accurate based on the elements which make up the human body.[/b]
    All you have done here is given a list of the chemical constituents of the human body and noted that Oxygen is the most abundant element in both us and the earth's crust (43% in us and around 60% in the crust, not a particularly strong correlation). You have not compared any other elements, nor have you provided any comparison with anything else.

    Also, where does this 'dust of the earth' come from? Dust is essentially very fine particles. Much of it, depending on where you get it from, will be dead human skin cells and other organic matter.

    It may be truer to say that "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the dust from the ground out of man. . ." than "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground . . .".

    The biblical quote does not provide any scientific insights.

    --- Penguin.
  10. Standard membergalveston75
    Texasman
    San Antonio Texas
    Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    78672
    17 Nov '10 15:261 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    The Bible does not state in it, it is true, I believe the Book of Mormon makes
    that claim. The 66 different books in the Bible are all stand alone scriptures
    that have been compiled into one book, the Bible. Genesis the first book does
    not come out and say, this is true, it simply states, "In the beginning God..."
    you can take or leave it after that.
    Kelly
    Actually Kelly, the Bible has a consistant theme from Genesis to Revelation. It's all about the re-establishment of God's Kingdom back over the earth and the re-establishing of his right to rule us. That is what Satan challenged before all.
    Satan said God was a lier and that man could do this on their own. God has let time go by to prove man can't and Revelation brings it all into focus with the final destruction of Satan and his influence on the earth....
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    17 Nov '10 15:34
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what does this prove? where in the bible does it say the chemical composition of humans? are you saying this proves humans were made of dirt? explain.

    yes, oxygen is very abundant both in the earth's crust and the human body. hardly surprising. why isn't silicon more abundant in the human body? dirt is made 60% of SiO2, why isn't there such an overwhelmi ...[text shortened]... lve water getting changed in any way, you just add some more ingredients and presto! human.
    what I am saying is quite clear, the Bible as it was written, is entirely harmonious with science and that in the instance of Adams creation, science can be used to corroborate its accuracy. I would like to know how the Bible writer came to know that we as humans are essentially made up of elements most abundantly found in the earth's crust (the dust) as indicated by the elements which science has revealed constitute our makeup . Coincidence is not an explanation.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    17 Nov '10 15:375 edits
    Originally posted by Penguin
    All you have done here is given a list of the chemical constituents of the human body and noted that Oxygen is the most abundant element in both us and the earth's crust (43% in us and around 60% in the crust, not a particularly strong correlation). You have not compared any other elements, nor have you provided any comparison with anything else.

    Also, wh ].

    The biblical quote does [b]not
    provide any scientific insights.

    --- Penguin.[/b]
    other elements such as silicates while being carbon based can form proteins but apparently they are not very stable, as yet no explanation has been proffered as to why the Bible writer knew that we are essentially made up of elements most abundantly found in the ground, the dust as he puts it. In this instance science not only harmonises with the Biblical account but corroborates it, indeed until an explanation is proffered I will continue to assert that this is the case. The biblical quote was not intended to form any scientific insight, simply to illustrate a point, scripture and science harmonise! If you look at the word used in the inspired text, it refers to, clay according to the later usage of the Hebrew word used in pottery making.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    17 Nov '10 15:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    The Bible does not state in it, it is true, I believe the Book of Mormon makes
    that claim. The 66 different books in the Bible are all stand alone scriptures
    that have been compiled into one book, the Bible. Genesis the first book does
    not come out and say, this is true, it simply states, "In the beginning God..."
    you can take or leave it after that.
    Kelly
    Jesus Christ himself states of scripture, 'your word is truth', I have at present, no reason to disbelieve that assertion! indeed Christ himself makes reference to the creation of Adam and Eve, hardly likely if he considered it a fictional event.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    17 Nov '10 16:28
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what I am saying is quite clear, the Bible as it was written, is entirely harmonious with science and that in the instance of Adams creation, science can be used to corroborate its accuracy. I would like to know how the Bible writer came to know that we as humans are essentially made up of elements most abundantly found in the earth's crust (the dus ...[text shortened]... elements which science has revealed constitute our makeup . Coincidence is not an explanation.
    dude, what you are saying isn't true at all. there are only like 100 elements in all, and only some of them are what you would call abundant. Odds are we would be made out of something found abundantly in the earth as well.

    just because we share some elements with earth doesn't mean we came from it. by this reasoning, humans came from whales, whales came from pigs and pigs came from chikins just because the elements found abundantly in humans can also be found in pigs, chikins and whales.

    if your theory would have merit, wouldn't it stand to reason silicon would be more abundant in the human body as well? or aluminum?


    and yes, if you want to be overly general, you could say that humans came from dirt because we were all part of a mollecular cloud from which the solar system spawned. but then your literal interpretation of the bible goes out the window.
    so which is it? god literally took a hand of garden variety dirt, made a dirt puppet called adam and breathed life on it or did we evolve to our current stage over 4 billion years time?
  15. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    17 Nov '10 16:401 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what I am saying is quite clear, the Bible as it was written, is entirely harmonious with science and that in the instance of Adams creation, science can be used to corroborate its accuracy. I would like to know how the Bible writer came to know that we as humans are essentially made up of elements most abundantly found in the earth's crust (the dus ...[text shortened]... elements which science has revealed constitute our makeup . Coincidence is not an explanation.
    Sorry to rain down on your parade Rob, but humans being made from clay is hardy unique to the Biblical creation story.

    The Babylonian creation story has the Goddess Ninhursag creating humans from clay, so does the ram headed God Khnum in Egyptian mythology, so does the mythical Chinese goddess Nuwa. Mayan myth holds that Tepeu and Kukulkán (Quetzalcoatl) made the first humans from clay, and the Maori people believe that Tane Mahuta, God of the forest, created the first woman out of clay and breathed life into her, and so was Pandora created by Hephaestus in Greek mythology.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree