The Definition of Dust: Whatever You Want it to be.

[LogicChristian]

From the word "kind" to "macroevolution" to "dust" it seems that whenever creationists are backed into a logical corner in an argument, they just change the definition of whatever is being argued about. Why is that?

 

[Dracil]

For reference, this is what we're talking about.
From http://www.christianforums.com/t2114450-biblical-literalists.html

Actually, the reality is that serpants became the first meat-eaters. And what is flesh but dust...

Genesis 3:19.

Everyone started as herbivores, eating plants, fruits, and vegetables. Then added to this were insects and dead animals (dust) [...]

No, All livings things return to dust. Ground silicone is dust. We contain all sorts of minerals, as do all animals and apes...

in response to the question

I have a question for you. Why don't snakes eat dust? It clearly says in Genesis that snakes are cursed, and that they will eat dust in the future. Yet, modern snakes clearly do not eat dust. Why is that?

We aren't meat-eaters, we're dust eaters. Those teeth we have? They aren't for tearing flesh, they're for tearing dust.

What did I have for lunch? Not a hamburger, a dustburger.

This place isn't dusty. It's meaty.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I find it funny when literalists stop being literal when its inconvenient.

 

[nvxplorer]

Now I know why my cats play with dust bunnies. They’re meaty!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

From the word "kind" to "macroevolution" to "dust" it seems that whenever creationists are backed into a logical corner in an argument, they just change the definition of whatever is being argued about. Why is that?

Because their position is inherently illogical, duh.

 

[nvxplorer]

.

 

[LittleNipper]

I find it funny when literalists stop being literal when its inconvenient.

Literal by way of Biblical interpretation. Using the Bible to understand what the meaning of a verse could be------rather then going outside the the Bible and imposing one's own values... My understanding of scripture should fit the scriptures. Scripture should not be interpreted to fit my understanding...
Even though the Bible was written for man, it is written from GOD's perspective. We are made from dust and to dust we will return. I see no way you can ignore that decree. Returning to dust represents decay. Rather then eating living matter the serpent was reduced to injesting what was dead.

 

[z3ro]

Literal by way of Biblical interpretation. Using the Bible to understand what the meaning of a verse could be------rather then going outside the the Bible and imposing one's own values... My understanding of scripture should fit the scriptures. Scripture should not be interpreted to fit my understanding...
Even though the Bible was written for man, it is written from GOD's perspective. We are made from dust and to dust we will return. I see no way you can ignore that decree. Returning to dust represents decay. Rather then eating living matter the serpent was reduced to injesting what was dead.

Um, most snakes eat living meat, in fact, I can't think of any snakes that are scavengers.

 

[notto]

Rather then eating living matter the serpent was reduced to injesting what was dead.

So when did the curse on the serpent end? Why don't snakes only eat what is dead now?

 

[TheBigAl]

Literal by way of Biblical interpretation. Using the Bible to understand what the meaning of a verse could be------rather then going outside the the Bible and imposing one's own values... My understanding of scripture should fit the scriptures. Scripture should not be interpreted to fit my understanding...
Even though the Bible was written for man, it is written from GOD's perspective. We are made from dust and to dust we will return. I see no way you can ignore that decree. Returning to dust represents decay. Rather then eating living matter the serpent was reduced to injesting what was dead.

Contradictions and more contradictions.

First, you are saying that scripture shouldn’t be twisted to fit your understanding, yet you twist scriptures to fit your idea that we eat dirt, by misusing the quote “…from dust we come and to dust we become”

It does symbolize the notion of death, but it takes years for a decomposed body to completely turn into a dusty form (which is technically not dust since both have different chemical properties).

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Literal by way of Biblical interpretation. Using the Bible to understand what the meaning of a verse could be------rather then going outside the the Bible and imposing one's own values... My understanding of scripture should fit the scriptures. Scripture should not be interpreted to fit my understanding...
Even though the Bible was written for man, it is written from GOD's perspective. We are made from dust and to dust we will return. I see no way you can ignore that decree. Returning to dust represents decay. Rather then eating living matter the serpent was reduced to injesting what was dead.

The Irony is strong in this one.

 

[YellowStar]

Snakes do eat dust!

by Carl Wieland

In Genesis 3:14 we read, ‘And the Lord God said unto the serpent… “upon your belly you shall go, and shall eat dust all the days of your life”.’ Since snakes do not really appear to eat dust, this has been taken as an example of either obvious metaphor (which seems reasonable) or an example of the Bible’s propensity to error, depending upon one’s bias.

In Micah 7:17 we read, ‘(The nations) shall lick the dust like a serpent’.

Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.

There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.

Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.

 

[nvxplorer]

Snakes do eat dust!

by Carl Wieland

In Genesis 3:14 we read, ‘And the Lord God said unto the serpent… “upon your belly you shall go, and shall eat dust all the days of your life”.’ Since snakes do not really appear to eat dust, this has been taken as an example of either obvious metaphor (which seems reasonable) or an example of the Bible’s propensity to error, depending upon one’s bias.

In Micah 7:17 we read, ‘(The nations) shall lick the dust like a serpent’.

Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.

There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.

Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.

Nice try, but this is quite a stretch. The snake’s tongue is sampling airborn chemicals, not dust per se. It’s also an exaggeration to say the snake is eating these chemicals. Moreover, there is dust everywhere. Nearly every creature inhales and consumes dust. That being the case, Wieland’s explanation can be extended to most species, thus rendering the explanation meaningless. I think his suggestion that the verse is obvious metaphor is correct.

 

[In A Perfect World]

You know, either way, we come from "mud". God makes us out of clay, or life develops in a bunch of slop and eventually becomes us.

 

[BananaSlug]

textile fibers, decomposing insect parts, pet dander, human and animal hair, food leftovers, pollen grains, mold spores, bacteria, skin flakes, insulation, sand, and the most likely offender, the dust mite and its fecal material

http://www.dustfree.com/housdust.htm
I would much rather evolve "from a monkey"