Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

By logical observation we can come to the conclusion that something cannot arise from nothing. There is no observable evidence of this.

There was a time people used to think that flies just randomly appeared out of nothing. Later it was shown they come from maggots.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is God's word to man to help us achieve salvation. But when it does touch on scientific subjects it is not inaccurate.

And if I may, it uses a very simple but eloquent argument for the existence of God when it states:

(Hebrews 3:4) Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

You see if you were walking through a desert and found a house that was built and furnished, complete with refrigeration, and food, and everything, would you conclude it came about by chance? Or that someone designed it and put it their with effort and work?

(Romans 1:20) 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

While God is invisible and resides without our physical universe (he created it) he considers the fact that creation itself is a testament to his existence, so that those who refuse to acknowledge he exists are inexcusable.

In fact God's word that reveals the intentions of a person's heart, reveals the heart condition of suchlike ones, who after no contemplation and reflection (not just going along with the flow) continue to ignore that he exists:

(Psalm 10:4) In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

a reply to: iNobody

It is God's word to man to help us achieve salvation.

According to...the Bible.
That's all fine and good. But it's what's known as a circular argument.

a reply to: spy66

Well, according to the bible we are all inbreds from the flood. Only 8 people survived, there had to be some inbreeding along the line somewhere. At least with Adam and Eve there were other people in Nod. Not sure where they came from but yeah.

originally posted by: peter vlar
and once again, no matter how many times in your multiple threads this has been explained to you... Evolution is about biological processes and is a completely separate field of study from the chemical processes that led to the first organic life on earth, whether it be abiogenesis, panspermia or an as yet unknown process.

Peter this thread is not about evolution, where do you come across evolution in the OP, if anything its about abiogenesis.

Personally I think abiogenesis is evolution and you know that, so stop telling me what you think and why I have to accept what you tell me I have to accept. I dont, your opinion is invalid in my view, please man up and learn to live with the fact I dont think the way you demand I do.

Imagine me to be so arrogant and pig headed to say to you, abiogenesis is evolution and YOU MUST believe that. Stupid thing for me to say isnt it.

Panspermia, abiogenesis somewhere else, petty and silly argument hiding something or confusing the issue.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar

Have you ever tried to make a Family tree by starting With you?

Sure, who hasn't made it through the 3rd grade?

Do you know that if you try.....you will actually see that Your Family tree branches out infinitelly. Unless we are all inbreeds.

It will never end up With Adam and Eve.

Well of course not, we would all be genetic rejects within several generations if everyone really descended from just 2 people who shared the exact same genetics.

But at what stage on the tree was the human branch made? All humans should be able to track their branch to its origin branch. Unless we just poped up randomly all over the Place.

I suppose that depends on what you want to consider "humans". We could go back to the first members of the Genus Homo( H. Habilis), we could make the delineation point H. Heidelbergensis which is the predecessor of the most recent hominids( H. Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and H. Sapiens Sapiens) or we could go back 200 KYA with the emergence of H. Sapiens. Should we go back further? maybe 7 MA to Saehlanthropus Tchadensis? Or do you want to go back farther to say...Oreopithecus, a bipedal, European ape from the Miocene(7-9 MA).

originally posted by: borntowatch
Evolution seems to state life started from nothing as a scientific fact, yet you want to argue our faith is laughable compared to your faith.

I would think that to the universe we are a bunch of complex chemical reactions, so to say life came from nothing is really just humans labeling life as something different than what it actually is, and then suggesting it is special in some way. To the point that it can not be created without intelligent design involved, but then when we break it down into it simplest functions it fits quite nicely within the laws of this universe.

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion on the subject. I have found that many people come to think that faith and facts are two different things. Yet even God's word states that faith is based on evidence that can be proven:

(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

You see God does not just expect us to unreasoning and blindly believe. In fact we are told to use our power of reason when discerning truth.

True there are many people who do not have truth faith but claim they have it, and many who have no knowledge, or twisted knowledge, and claim to believe God's word. This can all be confusing, and it is designed that way.

But God's word can be proven as reliable and more than just of human origin. There are ways to prove it. That is what true faith is.

a reply to: peter vlar

Why dont you tell us when exactly the Human branch was made?

And from what exact branch it was.

a reply to: iNobody

There are ways to prove it. That is what true faith is.

Faith and proof are not compatible terms.
I've heard it said that faith does not require proof. Do you disagree?

originally posted by: borntowatch


Peter this thread is not about evolution, where do you come across evolution in the OP, if anything its about abiogenesis.

No, it's about MAN and evidence for the biblical interpretation. As Man is not the first life form, its clearly not about abiogenesis or panspermia.

Personally I think abiogenesis is evolution and you know that, so stop telling me what you think and why I have to accept what you tell me I have to accept. I dont, your opinion is invalid in my view, please man up and learn to live with the fact I dont think the way you demand I do.

Please step down of your throne while spouting your self pious homilies. The act is stale and musty at this point. Nobody, least of all myself, is DEMANDING you accept anything. I'm merely pointing out that you are crafting a dud of a strawman to suit your own purposes. The standard definition is all I am alluding to. If that's not kosher with you then man up and take the matter up with the appropriate authorities. Perhaps Websters or Brittanica would like to entertain your notions.

Imagine me to be so arrogant and pig headed to say to you, abiogenesis is evolution and YOU MUST believe that. Stupid thing for me to say isnt it.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that then!

Panspermia, abiogenesis somewhere else, petty and silly argument hiding something or confusing the issue.

No...that's your game not mine.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The bible says that man was created from dirt, so is there any evidence of this ever being observed or any evidence at all that supports this notion outside of the bible?

And what about women being created from a man's rib? Is there any evidence or proof of this being an observable phenomenon?

Thanks in advance for replying.

I bet you are laboring under a misunderstanding about the bible but i will get into that later.

now for a lesson in astronomy. Way back in the beginning there was no stuff as we know it today. not even dust. the universe cooled enough for some basic stuff to form. then the universe started to get clumpy. the uneven distribution of stuff allowed gravity to build massive staggering massive lump of stuff. this stuff was still pretty basic: Hydrogen, Helium lithium and that was about it more or less. when these lumps got massive enough they go hot and the internal pressure forced tiny bits of it together despite electrical repulsion. these ignited into the first stars. eventually these first stars consumed all of the lighter stuff and went on to use the results for further fuel cycles. also with a lot of particles being banged together there was additional genesis of heavier elements. when the first stars could no longer burn anything within them they blew up releasing the stuff they had made to the universe at large. this was the dust from which the next generations of stars were made. it was star stuff. or dust if you will. yes we are all made of dust.

now about that misunderstanding of the bible. it's ok. there are millions of Christians that also misunderstand this book.
The Torah and new testament were not written in the lords english until the KJV and another version of the bible was published. The original torah was written in Hebrew mostly though Christ and the Apostles quoted the Greek translation that was published at about thier time. The source documents used to publish the KJV bible is written in Hebrew, chaldee, Aramaic and greek. Translating ancient Hebrew (the editors decided to use the Hebrew rather than the Septaugent version of the OT) is a b*tch. The Editors knew this and in their preface to thier work to King James and the reader; they explained areas that they had difficulties and explained why they made the choices of wording they did. And that get us to the problem.

direct literal translation between even modern languages is sometimes difficult or impossible as anyone who has lived in another culture or is a polyglot knows. but with old languages there are additional difficulties. In ancient hebrew for example the same words can represent dozens of meanings. If you look at a good concordance that's all you need to verify that the words in question dust or clay also mean other things. in fact one of the meanings is material. and clay is also used metaphorically too. so when you look at the word you have a catalog of different possible meanings. basically you have a ancient hebrew thesarus that you don't see in the english print bible. There is no reason to take the passage as anything but a metaphor for things the reader would not understand anyway. I cannot see Moses knowing about genetics cellular biology, cloning and so forth. It would be easier to use a familiar process that he could understand so as to not bog him down in a doctorate program in several fields of science. but if you do want to go literal the word used also means material.

interestingly.. the word used when describing the operation to make eve the hebrew word for rib also means curve or helix. so you could read it god took DNA from adam to make eve.

Scientifically there is no problem we are made from (star) dust and indeed we return to dust. linguistically there is a whole lot of hidden stuff that those that want to be literalists should look at if they really want to be literal. you cannot be a fundamentalist or literalist if you think the english version is the end all and be all of the word of god. trying it makes you look like a fool and plays into the hands of scoffers all to ready to point out any part that appears to be contradictory or that cannot possible be true as literally derived from the english translation. they love it when a bible believer says there are no dinosaurs or that the earth is only a few thousand years old. they love it. the devil loves it too.

a reply to: borntowatch

Personally I think abiogenesis is evolution and you know that, so stop telling me what you think and why I have to accept what you tell me I have to accept.

No it is not. Both are completely separate theories. We are not telling you to accept it. It's the definition!

a reply to: spy66

Again, what is your definition of human that you are trying to get a time frame for? I gave several examples, pick one, explain why you believe it to be the case and I can explain it much easier.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iNobody

There are ways to prove it. That is what true faith is.

Faith and proof are not compatible terms.
I've heard it said that faith does not require proof. Do you disagree?

Dont you have faith in science Phage?

Dont you have faith in the proof that they present?

a reply to: Phage

I will stick to what God's word defines faith as:

(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

Faith is based on solid evidence that can be proven. It is faith in that it is not seen. A simple illustration. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning tomorrow. This is based on observable evidence, that it always has in the past, so I have firm confidence, I have solid grounds to base my faith on.

It is no different with God. Faith in God is based on solid evidence that he has provided. It is faith in that we cannot literally see him. But we have evidence of his existence.

a reply to: Phage

I will stick to what God's word defines faith as:

(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

Faith is based on solid evidence that can be proven. It is faith in that it is not seen. A simple illustration. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning tomorrow. This is based on observable evidence, that it always has in the past, so I have firm confidence, I have solid grounds to base my faith on.

It is no different with God. Faith in God is based on solid evidence that he has provided. It is faith in that we cannot literally see him. But we have evidence of his existence.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: spy66

Again, what is your definition of human that you are trying to get a time frame for? I gave several examples, pick one, explain why you believe it to be the case and I can explain it much easier.

My definition is the same as Yours.

When did Man start to Call it self Human?

a reply to: spy66

Dont you have faith in science

Do you have faith in the gravitational theory? Do you have faith that the apples will always fall down from trees?

a reply to: spy66

Dont you have faith in science Page?

No. I think that science is a valid process for understanding aspects of the physical universe.

Dont you have faith in the proof that they present?

"Faith in the proof" is an oxymoron. If there is proof there is no need for faith. Conversely, if there is faith there is (or should be) no need for proof.

a reply to: spy66

so what is my definition?