Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1 of 153 (359586)
10-29-2006 2:00 AM


The great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is often quoted for his famous statement: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." By 'makes sense'. he is referring to the continuity and context in which all biological systems are found. He is essentially saying that evolution and the mechanisms by which it operates are as fundamental to the existence of biological entities and our understanding of them as atoms are fundamental to the existence of chemical entities and our understanding of those.
Before the atomic nature of matter was established beyond doubt (in 1905 by Einstein's paper quantitatively explaining the atomic origin of Brownian motion), there were two distinct scientific theories of matter: the atomic theory and the continuum theory. Each theory claimed experimental evidence in its support and a lot of empirical evidence could be interpreted to support both theories. The concepts underlaying these two theories and the heated controversies as to which was correct can be traced back to early Greek philosophies (and probably arose much earlier): Zeno's paradoxes assume the continuum theory, while Democrites' atomic theory was proposed in part to refute Zeno's paradoxes.
The point of this PNT is to ask if the bible, in any of its passages, takes a stand on this controversy. Can anyone quote a biblical passage that clearly states, or that can be interpreted to state that matter is either continuous or atomic in nature? "Atomic" here means made up of distinct units and includes molecules as well as atoms.
I will start the ball rolling with the second verse of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void..." 'Without form' clearly implies that the matter of the earth was continuous and not atomic in nature, for if it were atomic (and molecular), it would have the form of the atoms (and molecules) that make it up. Thus, either Genesis 1.2 or the atomic theory of matter is correct, but not both.
Any comments or other examples from the bible that support one theory or the other?
What forum? Bible inerrancy I suppose.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 6:26 AM AnswersInGenitals has replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-30-2006 10:20 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 6 by Equinox, posted 10-30-2006 12:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2006 12:12 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 10-30-2006 12:18 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2006 3:06 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 11-05-2006 2:56 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 47 by Joman, posted 11-16-2006 2:05 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 49 by Joman, posted 11-16-2006 2:58 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 74 by doctrbill, posted 12-13-2006 3:49 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 153 (359638)
10-29-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
10-29-2006 6:26 AM


While Einstein's Brownian motion paper made a contribution, weren't the contributions of Ernest Rutherford far more significant in this regard?
Rutherford's 1911 work elucidating the internal structure of atoms and correcting Thompson's 'plum pudding' model was certainly an important contribution to understanding atomic structure, but it is my understanding that it was Einstein's 1905 work that convinced the last holdouts for the continuum theory that matter had to be atomic in nature.
Almost all chemists were already convinced of the atomic theory by Dalton's work on the ratios of atoms in chemicals, but many physicists still adhered to the continuum model due to the laws of thermodynamics being based on continuum models and thermodynamics being the 'hot topic' in the late 19th century.
But I really didn't mean this thread to be concerned with science history. I only threw in the Einstein connection as a side interest. I will remove that comment if you think it confuses the issue I wish to see discussed: whether the bible appears to come down on one side or the other of the continuum vs. atomic conflict. I am, of course, looking to see if there is an issue besides geology (flood, etc.) and biology (creationnism, etc.) where bible literacy and modern science can be compared or contrasted, an issue that is hopefully more directly and less contentiously resolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-29-2006 6:26 AM Admin has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 153 (359855)
10-30-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
10-30-2006 12:12 PM


Dr. A writes:
If I were to speak of, for example, a "formless lump of clay", then you would not take my words to "clearly imply" that the clay was not made of atoms.
Only, there is no such thing as a "formless lump of clay". Every lump of clay has some (lumpy?) form. And since your words, to the best of my knowledge, have not had the power to create an entire universe, I don't put your pronouncements in the same category as the word of god. Unlike you and me, god is 'scale free': you do not preceive the atoms in the clay, but to god an atom is like a universe and the universe is as an atom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2006 12:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2006 12:39 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 153 (359859)
10-30-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
10-30-2006 12:18 PM


See my response to Dr. A in post 9. You seem to be implying here that the words of the bible are entirely subject to ones personal interpretation. Is god really so lacking in communication skills that we have to guess and surmise and debate as to his actual meaning when it is so easy to just take him at his word: The earth, when first formed, was without form. Period. No form at any scale. He said it. I read it. Don't dread it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 10-30-2006 12:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-30-2006 12:41 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 153 (369381)
12-12-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by 1.61803
12-12-2006 5:47 PM


Atomic bible, but oral continuum.
The bible stories were originally an oral tradition and were part of a traditional oral continuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 12-12-2006 5:47 PM 1.61803 has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 153 (369683)
12-14-2006 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by doctrbill
12-13-2006 3:49 PM


Re: Devil in the Details
I say the bible, as you have elucidated it, is a book for all seasons; a Chinese menu of potential interpretations: select 'void' from column A, 'form' from column B. No wonder there has been so much war, strife, and torturous murder over this one tome. That his book invites, nay, demands such divisive and confused interpretations makes one wonder whether it is the product of the darker forces. That would explain so much about our worlds religions and there interactions. A benevolent, loving god would certainly be clear and unambiguous in his pronouncements so that there would be unforced convivial unanimity in the understanding of his words, particularly where the correct understanding means the difference between eternal bliss and eternal torment.
What say ye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by doctrbill, posted 12-13-2006 3:49 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by doctrbill, posted 12-14-2006 1:23 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024