Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[mmksparbud]

Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight/2744/

 

[lesliedellow]

In light of special creation do you really think those details matter to God? Surely he can transform the elements into whatever he wants them to be. The more interesting question is why was Adam made from the dust of the ground? Or why do we need to know that Adam was made from the dust of the ground?

I think we got here by way of evolution. As for the phrase "dust of the ground," elsewhere in the Bible it is used as a put down, when God wants to remind us of our status.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am sure you will know my answer: the "7 day" account was never intended to denote 7 literal days.

Please supply your Scriptural support for this claim.
Also, please explain Exodus 20:11.

I am quite sure that you will ultimately be forced to concede that you have no substantial argument as to why we need to take all Biblical texts literally.

The six day creation is part of the Ten Commandments, and is the basis for the Fourth Commandment.

 

[lesliedellow]

Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life. And compared to many proposed geoengineering fixes, storing carbon in soil is simple: It’s a matter of returning carbon where it belongs.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight/2744/

800 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that it contributes 0.04% to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Carbon accounts for less than 2% of the mass of soil. You are seduced by big numbers.

 

[KWCrazy]

I think we got here by way of evolution.

What you think is contrary to the word of God, and is thus false.

 

[KWCrazy]

I repeat again. It says earth, and earth is not made of carbon or of carbon compounds.

Completely irrelevant. You can't form a man in the dust and make it come to life regardless of he chemical composition of that dust. You couldn't do it with the exact chemical composition of the human anatomy. It's called a miracle for a reason.

 

[lesliedellow]

What you think is contrary to the word of God, and is thus false.

Tell that to a dyed in the wool conservative like James Boice or John Walton.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think we got here by way of evolution. As for the phrase "dust of the ground," elsewhere in the Bible it is used as a put down, when God wants to remind us of our status.

The construction: "עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה" (dust of the ground) only occurs in Genesis 2. The words "עָפָר֙" and "הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה" occur together a few other times in the OT, but none of it is in the context of a put down. What do you mean?

 

[lesliedellow]

Completely irrelevant. You can't form a man in the dust and make it come to life regardless of he chemical composition of that dust. You couldn't do it with the exact chemical composition of the human anatomy. It's called a miracle for a reason.

If it is a miracle why did God need soil at all? Why not creation ex nihilo?

 

[Job8]

A literally true description does not mean a complete scientific description.

Good point. Also, there is no way to know what else was present in that original dust.

 

[Job8]

If it is a miracle why did God need soil at all? Why not creation ex nihilo?

Because God anticipated that Adam would sin, men would die, and their remains would return to the dust from whence Adam came. Also, the imagery of the Potter and the clay would apply to men.

 

[lesliedellow]

The construction: "עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה" (dust of the ground) only occurs in Genesis 2. The words "עָפָר֙" and "הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה" occur together a few other times in the OT, but none of it is in the context of a put down. What do you mean?

"For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return," sounds like a pretty good put down for somebody who was beginning to think of himself as a god, if not God's equal.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because God anticipated that Adam would sin, men would die, and their remains would return to the dust from whence Adam came. Also, the imagery of the Potter and the clay would apply to men.

That makes no sense at all. Our bodies would decompose after death, even if the first person had been created ex nihilo, and the image of the potter and his clay would also work just as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

Tell that to a dyed in the wool conservative like James Boice or John Walton.

Have them email me and I will.
It's not a matter of liberal or conservative, wise or foolish; educated or uneducated. It's a matter of whether you put your faith in the word of God or the opinions of others. Evolution is an opinion, not a fact; despite how enthusiastically it's supporters might try to convince you otherwise.

 

[tatteredsoul]

If he created Adam from the dust of the earth, where did the carbon come from? It doesn't say nothing; it says the dust of the earth.

OK I'm going to say it. There are hundreds of pounds of carbon available in the ambient air. Easily, chemical processes can break the bonds, and provide the bond energy to make other organic compounds. It is done in the lab all of the time.

 

[expos4ever]

Please supply your Scriptural support for this claim.

This is like asking someone to "prove" from the text of the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" that the story is fictional. People who use literary devices - allegory, metaphor, etc. - certainly do not announce that this what they are doing! If they did so, the effect of the literary device would be lost.

I could equally ask you to provide a scripture that states "all events, accounts, and stories in these 66 books are to be understood literally".

Can you provide such a text?

Also, please explain Exodus 20:11.

I should not really have do this; it is self-evident that given a whole ranges of facts about the Bible (e.g. the fact that it is obviously non-literal in at last some places) and other things we know about the world (e.g. tons of evidence for an old earth and for evolution), reason forces us to conclude that all references to a 7 day creation event are not to be taken literally.

 

[expos4ever]

Evolution is an opinion, not a fact; despite how enthusiastically it's supporters might try to convince you otherwise.

And this is where any hope of a meeting of minds has to die. Unless and until those who are in denial about the overwhelming evidence for evolution come to accept what nature is telling us so clearly, there can be no progress.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The more interesting question is why was Adam made from the dust of the ground? Or why do we need to know that Adam was made from the dust of the ground?

That may be more interesting to many of us but since the OP's interest is to disprove God/creation/the bible, that won't matter much here.

Why in the world it is so important to these people to see to it they can do everything they can to change most Christians beliefs is beyond me. Why not just leave us in our happy stupidity? Unless of course, if they feel they have succeeded in refuting God/Bible, then they can stop being frightened out of their mind because if God doesn't exist, then they are in no trouble at all, and the more they can get to believe God doesn't exist, the safer they feel. Yeah, that could be it, nothing else makes any real sense.

 

[lesliedellow]

Have Evolution is an opinion, not a fact; despite how enthusiastically it's supporters might try to convince you otherwise.

Creationists can repeat that to themselves as often as they like. It won't make it true.

 

[lesliedellow]

That may be more interesting to many of us but since the OP's interest is to disprove God/creation/the bible, that won't matter much here.

I am not in the least bit interested in disproving God, or the Bible for that matter. Just the fundamentalists' interpretation of it.