To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[verysincere]

Our atoms are going to be resurrected. Even if you cremate the body and scatter the atoms all over the world, God at a point in time will bring them all back together again.

I have often heard that "atomic resurrection" claim. It fascinates me for two reasons:

1) It can't be found in the Bible.

2) It doesn't make sense scientifically. Most of the bodies of followers of Christ who have died through the centuries are not somehow sequestered from the rest of the biosphere. Their atoms are "recycled" into the bodies of people living in later centuries. Consider just the carbon atoms, for example, which return to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide as a body decomposes. Every time a modern day Christian takes a breath of air, how many atoms which were once among the body tissues of Jesus' disciples enter into that pair of lungs? (I've seen calculations for that sort of situation of "organic atom recycling", usually estimating the numbers of atoms which were exhaled from someone like Socrates or Julius Caesar. The numbers are far larger than the non-mathematically inclined might think.)

Of course, moment by moment, countless atoms enter and leave the body through many routes. And while only some of them become part of body tissues per se, only those present at the moment of death would be considered part of the corpse. So, in fact, the human body is really just a "snapshot in time" involving a particular part set of atoms.

I will leave the math to others---especially considering that a great many of the key numbers can scarcely be estimated---but I'm curious if we can at least all agree on this:

==> If all Christians through the centuries were to be resurrected "at an atomic level", there would have to be a great many "shared atoms". That is, to retrieve the atoms composing the body of each and every deceased Christian at the time of their death, how do the atoms get assigned when so many were shared?

No doubt some will say that an appropriate miracle will take place and it will somehow solve the logical impossibility. But wouldn't it make more sense simply to say that the Bible speaks of a physical resurrection of each body but not necessarily on an atomic level?

 

[Jamin4422]

I have often heard that "atomic resurrection" claim. It fascinates me for two reasons:

1) It can't be found in the Bible.

2) It doesn't make sense scientifically.

You do not think the resurrection is in the Bible? WOW!!!

This question actually goes back to a sermon in 1732 and was later promoted by John Wesley. Sermon 137 - On the Resurrection of the Dead - General Board of Global Ministries

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" How can these things be? How is it possible that these bodies should be raised again, and joined to their several souls, which many thousands of years ago were either buried in the earth, or swallowed up in the sea, or devoured by fire? -- which have mouldered into the finest dust, --that dust scattered over the face of the earth, dispersed as far as the heavens are wide; -- nay, which has undergone ten thousand changes, has fattened the earth, become the food of other creatures, and these again the food of other men? How is it possible that all these little parts, which made up the body of Abraham, should be again ranged together, and, unmixed with the dust of other bodies, be all placed in the same order and posture that they were before, so as to make up the very self-same body which his soul at his death forsook? Ezekiel was indeed, in a vision, set down in a valley full of dry bones, "and he heard a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone; the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the [/FONT]skin[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] covered them above, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet." This might be in a vision. But that all this, and much more, should in time come to pass; that our bones, after they are crumbled into dust, should really become living men; that all the little parts whereof our bodies were made, should immediately, at a general summons, meet again, and every one challenge and possess its own place, till at last the whole be perfectly rebuilt; that this, I say, should be done, is so incredible a thing, that we cannot so much as have any notion of it. And we may observe, that the Gentiles were most displeased with this article of the Christian faith; it was one of the last things the Heathens believed; and it is to this day the chief objection to Christianity, "How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?" In my discourse on these words, I shall do three things: --[/FONT]

 

[verysincere]

You do not think the resurrection is in the Bible? WOW!!!
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I will not insult you by pretending that your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you truly think that I denied that the resurrection of the body is in the Bible. (So I will ignore your attempt at humor and the feigned "WOW!!!!" and ask you to address the problems inherent to this "atomic resurrection" theory through which you amend the Biblical doctrine. My intention was not to embarrass you. Indeed, in pointing out its problems, I acknowledged that even though it is a flawed amendment to the resurrection doctrine, it is nevertheless a ubiquitous one, at least within American evangelical and fundamentalist circles.)

Be honest and admit that the "atomic resurrection" is a further amending of Wesley's "dust description" interpretation. It ADDS to the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection of the body by saying that it extends to the atomic level. A Christ-follower in the course of homiletical exposition is certainly at liberty to provide appropriate illustrative elaboration which they believe to be helpful in the understanding of the particular pericope. But because the Bible says nothing about atoms, for example, it prompts a warning that IS found in the scriptures: Do not go beyond that which is written. And considering the logical contradiction of that ADDITION to the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection, the Bible's warning to the presumptuous expositor deserves sober consideration---especially among those who hold to verbal plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of the scriptures.

And even though search engines facilitate all too quick and easy copy-and-paste operations from John Wesley et al, blind quotation oblivious to the context tends to replace thoughtful discussion with irrelevant tangents---and the dodging of the very cruix of the matter. We as Bible-believing Christ-followers are often criticized for our tendency to pontificate without listening and for extrapolating personal opinion or one's favorite cherished denominational tradition as if they are substantive fact---especially if changing the subject conceals the dodge. Of course, those who believe that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" have no need to run from difficult and/or complex issues. And we don't have "to go beyond that which is written". So when we face a question or issue which we are not presently equipped to address, there is certainly no shame in honestly stating, "I hadn't thought about that." or "I don't know the answer to that one." Non-Christians rarely mistake confident bluster for well-informed exposition.

Unfortunately, most of the threads in this forum's category are filled with extra-biblical declarations from Christians who confidently presume to teach on matters of science despite a profoundly defiant ignorance of the fields involved. Most of the time that mentality arises from a casual presumptuousness in ill-advised interpretations of both God's revelation in His scriptures and God's revelations in His creation. Christ-followers who should know better nevertheless operate as if the evidence in God's creation contradicts God's scriptures---- and non-Christians are thereby left to wonder why God would fill the universe with deceptive evidence which suggests a history that never happened. (Of course, most readers aren't that gullible and many will assume what is the actual explanation: Far too many Christians here insist upon defending their group's favorite traditional interpretations of the Bible instead of what the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Biblical texts are actually saying.)

 

[CabVet]

I think I'll go ahead and take this ...

... with a grain of salt.

Exactly as I said, both gravity and relativity are science.

 

[Loudmouth]

If they aren't going to take a miracle seriously, I assume they aren't going to take believers seriously as well.

What they take seriously is emprical evidence. Do you have any?

If I'm going to challenge science, I need to do it with science!?

Yep. Do you think you can challenge Usain Bolt by sitting in a Lazy Boy?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think I'll go ahead and take this ...

... with a grain of salt.

Take it however you want. At the end of the day, you are someone trying to make people ignore forensic evidence found at the scene of a crime by claiming that it was planted by fairies. That is your argument in a nutshell. It is not a valid challenge. It is a cop out.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not think the resurrection is in the Bible?

You do not think that the Greek gods are in the Iliad?

If I am able to show you that Zeus is found in the Iliad, will you believe in Zues? If not, then why should I believe in your god because it is found in a book?

 

[Loudmouth]

Science challenging science ... is that like fishermen challenging fishing?

It is like experiments testing hypotheses, otherwise known as science. What you push is made up stories challeging reality. Two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is like experiments testing hypotheses, otherwise known as science.

More like circular logic.

QV my Taj Mahal Challenge:

Here's a good example to illustrate the fact that something can indeed be "out there" beyond empirical detection:

• Suppose you were reduced to a fish in a pond with other fish. You all can communicate and are very intelligent. You know what you know now, but the other fish don't. They know nothing beyond "that barrier" they grew up under --- (the pond's surface).

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

 

[Giberoo]

More like circular logic.

QV my Taj Mahal Challenge:

The problem is that the number of things that 'might exist' is practically infinite.

And we can't believe in every possible thing.

The rational solution is to be initially sceptical of claims that things exist until we have reason to suspect they are factual - that is, until there is some sort of evidence for them.

It is possible God exists. It is possible unicorns, fairies, trolls and leprechauns exist. But we should think before we blindly believe in them all on no evidence whatsoever

 

[Jamin4422]

Be honest and admit that the "atomic resurrection" is a further amending of Wesley's "dust description" interpretation.

Your point is what? What are we if not atoms? What is dust other then atoms? Just exactly WHAT do you think it is that God is going to resurrect? I would like to know.

How do you think memory is stored? If you believe in a resurrection then exactly where is our memory that God is going to resurrect?

 

[Loudmouth]

More like circular logic.

Not at all. All scientific hypotheses are potentially falsifiable.

How would you convince your fish friends the Taj Mahal exists?

How did the fish determine tha the Taj Mahal exists in the first place?

 

[Freodin]

Your point is what? What are we if not atoms? What is dust other then atoms? Just exactly WHAT do you think it is that God is going to resurrect? I would like to know.

How do you think memory is stored? If you believe in a resurrection then exactly where is our memory that God is going to resurrect?

Considering that the atoms in your body - and in your brain - are constantly being exchanged... how do you propose you stay "you" all your life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all. All scientific hypotheses are potentially falsifiable.

How do you know? do you automatically assign 'potential falsification' to an hypothesis?

How much potential does it take to falsify any of the six different ways we got our moon?

And isn't it true that every time something is falsified, a new one pops up?

For instance, wasn't Phlogiston theory falsified by Combustion theory?

 

[Giberoo]

Considering that the atoms in your body - and in your brain - are constantly being exchanged... how do you propose you stay "you" all your life?

Just to add to this...

At what age will we be resurrected? The age that we died? That doesn't sound much comfort to those who die of old age, decrepit and looking back on their healthy years.

And if we are resurrected in some idealistic age (say 25), then what about children who never lived to see that age? They will be resurrected into bodies that they never actually possessed in life.

So many questions...

 

[Loudmouth]

How do you know?

Because I am educated. You should give it a try.

do you automatically assign 'potential falsification' to an hypothesis?

You can't have a hypothesis without the null hypothesis. That's Science 101. For example, we could hypothesize that atoms have a positively charged nucleus. To test this idea we could run an experiment like the one Rutherford ran:

The Rutherford Experiment

If the hypothesis is true then you should get scattering towards the detector due to the negatively charged electrons boucing off of the positively charged nucleus. The null hypothesis is the lack of positively charged nucleus that would result in a lack of scattering. You then run the experiment and let the facts determine if your hypothesis is correct or if the null hypothesis is correct.

Take your thalidomide example. We hypothesize that thalidomide is safe for pregnant mothers. What would potentially falsify this hypothesis?

How much potential does it take to falsify any of the six different ways we got our moon?

Pick one, start a thread, and we can discuss.

And isn't it true that every time something is falsified, a new one pops up?

Once a hypothesis is falsified scientists will create a new hypothesis to test. Why shouldn't they?

For instance, wasn't Phlogiston theory falsified by Combustion theory?

Perhaps you could discuss how Phlogiston theory was falsified.

 

[CabVet]

How do you know? do you automatically assign 'potential falsification' to an hypothesis?

How much potential does it take to falsify any of the six different ways we got our moon?

And isn't it true that every time something is falsified, a new one pops up?

For instance, wasn't Phlogiston theory falsified by Combustion theory?

AV, here is how evidence works and more evidence can change conclusions and falsify hypotheses. Quoted from a post I wrote almost a year ago answering to a similar question that you posted:

So, AV, lets do a little exercise, imagine the following situation:

Mike is an average student (C average). He is taking a physics class, in which he has turned in the homeworks, which are usually about half correct. His best friend John is also in the class. John is an excellent student, who is very diligent with his studies. John speaks out in class, but Mike does not. Both John and Mike received As on their midterms. The teacher thinks that Mike may have cheated on the exam, since Mike was sitting next to John.

Now let's classify the things above into evidence and hypotheses:

Evidence 1. Mike is a C student.
Evidence 2. Mike's homeworks are always half wrong.
Evidence 3. John is an A student.
Evidence 4. Both John and Mike get an A on the midterm.
Evidence 5. Mike was sitting close to John during the midterm.

Hypothesis 1. Mike cheated by copying his answers from John.
Hypothesis 2. Mike studied harder than ever before.

Only with the evidence above you could say that hypothesis 1 is the best you got, and you will go with it. Now let's suppose that after a few weeks you obtain the following evidence:

Evidence 6. During the week prior to the exam Mike borrowed many books from the library.
Evidence 7. After the midterm Mike starts bringing his homework 100% correct.
Evidence 8. Mike sits far from John in the finals and also gets an A.

So, three new pieces of evidence and Hypothesis 2 starts to get a lot nicer, doesn't it? Do evidence 6-8 make evidence 1-5 false?

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't think it's any secret that, if you want to go far in the life sciences, you'd better know how to spell Darwin's name.

Yes, knowledge of proper spelling, grammar and syntax are important for anyone wishing to work in any field of science, including spelling Darwin's name right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you know? do you automatically assign 'potential falsification' to an hypothesis?

Not much of a hypothesis if you don't.

How much potential does it take to falsify any of the six different ways we got our moon?

More than we currently have. Check back tomorrow.

And isn't it true that every time something is falsified, a new one pops up?

A new what? A new... "thing"?

Do you not like things, AV? do they frighten you?

 

[Jamin4422]

Considering that the atoms in your body - and in your brain - are constantly being exchanged... how do you propose you stay "you" all your life?

Really? So how does memory go from the old atoms to the new atoms.