For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[loverofhumanity]

This topic is not about evidences “FOR” or “AGAINST” evolution.

This topic is about creationists showing demonstrable evidences that man (Adam) can be created from the earth, as some scriptures say, like the Genesis 2 and Qur’ān 15, 23, 38 & 55.

According to Genesis, Adam is made out of dust from the earth.



As I understand it (verse), this “dust” would be “soil” of some types, which I had learned in my subjects on soil testing and foundation, in my days of studying civil engineering course, and “soil” could be of 3 basic types:

1. sand,
2. silt,
3. or clay.

Soil of these types have different chemical compounds and molecular structures of degraded rock minerals.

Before soil were made, the original source to soil are from rocks. The process of turning rock into soil...

(A) begins with “weathering” rock, where rock minerals (eg quartz or feldspar) have broken away from rock,
(B) and then over time, these rock minerals will degrade, turning rock minerals into clay minerals or silt minerals.​

Genesis is not very specific about the soil type, only that Adam’s creation is set somewhere in the Garden of Eden.

In the Qur’an, the soil is the last one, clay.

The story of Adam’s creation, in the Qur’an is entwined with the creation and fall of Iblis, the Islamic version of Satan/Devil.





The passage in Qur’an 38:71-77, repeated the creation of man in similar but slightly in more detail about the fall of Iblis (Satan). So I won’t bother quoting this passage.

In Qur’an 55:14, we have god shaping the clay into man, like pottery”.



But in Qur’an 23:12-14, we have some more detail about another material (“sperm-drop”) to make, and how all these, were .



The questions are, how can it be possible to make a living, breathing man of silt or clay or vague “dust”?

If we break down human flesh and bones into their molecular structures, they are not the molecular structures of clay or silt. How do you account for the chemical compositions (of human anatomy and soil) being so different?

So what evidences that you have that man is made directly out of the earth (soil)?

It shouldn’t be possible to create man from soil, unless it is all “magic” and supernatural.

The terms - man was created out of dust and water - are symbolical; meaning all the chemicals and elements found in both. As early peoples had no knowledge of elements the term dust or and water was used. Clay again is just a term meaning earthly substances.

it is common sense that these terms are not to be taken literally and simply refer to earthly substances which is true and correct. It also says in the Quran man was created from water and our bodies are a large percentage of fluids. The terms should not be taken literally.​

And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful. Quran 25:54

 

[ecco]

The questions are, how can it be possible to make a living, breathing man of silt or clay or vague “dust”?

Answer: God can do anything.

So what evidences that you have that man is made directly out of the earth (soil)?

Answer: The Bible.



Everything else posted by Creo's is just fluff and evasion.

 

[gnostic]

The terms - man was created out of dust and water - are symbolical; meaning all the chemicals and elements found in both. As early peoples had no knowledge of elements the term dust or and water was used. Clay again is just a term meaning earthly substances.

Except that it wasn’t symbolic.

You must understand before Judaism, Christianity and Islam, people who believed in other religions have similar myths about creating humankind from dust, soil or clay.

If they were truly only symbolic and allegories, then why retell a similar these pagan myths in abrahamic scriptures?

The bible, Tanakh and Qur’ān may be the current and still popular scriptures of today, but it also shown us that people still believe in superstition and the supernatural, that were prevalent in ancient times.

Anyone who has ever studied other ancient literature, that many religious belief would know that Christians, Jews and Muslims have adopted and adapted myths of other cultures.

Do you really think creation of man from dust, soil or clay were originally or uniquely Judaeo-Christian or Islamic concepts?

Well, they aren’t.

For instance, in Egypt, they believed that the ram-headed god, Khnum created humans from clay, moulding them on his potter’s wheel.

And in Mesopotamia, civilisations like the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians, have different myths about people being created from clay.

Example, in the Sumerian “Song of the Hoe”, the god Enlil using the hoe or pick ax, like a farmer. Enlil would use the hoe to break the soil, and dug out humans from the ground.

In another myth, “Enki and Ninmah” are involved in creation competition, to see who could create better humans than the other. And they were created from clay and water.

In the creation story that included the Flood, called the Epic of Atrahasis, was written in Akkadian or Old Babylonian, almost a thousand years before Genesis, say the first group of humans were created from clay and the blood of a slain god. The purpose for such creation was to replace the lesser gods with humans as “workers”, to built cities and temples, and to built irrigation and canals.

My point is that the Abrahamic religions are just as superstitious as their pagan counterparts, not understanding nature, like you said, so they invent stories or they adopt and adapt existing stories.

Saying it is merely “symbolic” is not really answers to not understanding the science in nature.

 

[Polymath257]

The terms - man was created out of dust and water - are symbolical; meaning all the chemicals and elements found in both. As early peoples had no knowledge of elements the term dust or and water was used. Clay again is just a term meaning earthly substances.

it is common sense that these terms are not to be taken literally and simply refer to earthly substances which is true and correct. It also says in the Quran man was created from water and our bodies are a large percentage of fluids. The terms should not be taken literally.​

And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful. Quran 25:54

So...no actual evidence. Just claims that we should ignore what is actually said and previously believed because *now* common sense says otherwise. In other words, after science has figured out that the direct interpretation cannot be correct.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I forgot that Enikidu, Gilgamesh’s companion, was also made out of clay and water, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, so the Qur’an is not original.

None of these stories are evidences that man can be made out of clay, but that Muhammad’s Qur’ān share the same mythology as that of other much older myths.

 

[Thief]

no evasion on my part.....I .....am made of dust

not made of anything else

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

you ARE the evidence

being made of dust is correct.....at any level

that Adam was made of dust is correct
so are you

Adam is unique only because he was the first to walk with God

I claim that leprechauns make rainbows. Rainbows are my evidence.

Do you find that argument compelling?

 

[Thief]

I claim that leprechauns make rainbows. Rainbows are my evidence.

Do you find that argument compelling?

I find your lack of logic ......lacks color

what part of dust....do you not understand

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I find your lack of logic ......lacks color

It is the same logic you are using.

what part of dust....do you not understand

What part of biochemistry do you not understand?

 

[Thief]

It is the same logic you are using.



What part of biochemistry do you not understand?

as previously posted....

it is common to say......a mother eats for two
all that she consumed came up from the ground (one way or another)

and you took up the consumption after your birth
and you are still doing it

when you can no longer partake.....you die

and back to dust you will go

what part of this do you deny?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

as previously posted....

it is common to say......a mother eats for two
all that she consumed came up from the ground (one way or another)

Some of it came from the atmosphere. Plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and make sugars with it. Other plants have nodules that contain microorganisms that fix nitrogen from the air to make it available to the plant. Also, eating plants is not eating dirt.

The major constituents of dust are things like aluminum and silica. How much of our bodies are made up of aluminum and silica? How are things like hydrogen and oxygen specific to soil?

what part of this do you deny?

That we survive by eating dirt.

 

[Thief]

Some of it came from the atmosphere. Plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and make sugars with it. Other plants have nodules that contain microorganisms that fix nitrogen from the air to make it available to the plant. Also, eating plants is not eating dirt.

The major constituents of dust are things like aluminum and silica. How much of our bodies are made up of aluminum and silica? How are things like hydrogen and oxygen specific to soil?



That we survive by eating dirt.

that gray dust on your shelf.........is you

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

that gray dust on your shelf.........is you

We don't eat that, either.

 

[Thief]

you seem more stubborn than reasonable

you haven't addressed the previous posts

I don't think you can

you are dust
so was (and is ) Adam and Eve

 

[osgart]

Lets see, evidence ...

Foot, hand, eye, ear, mind, heart, and will.

All these are tools. Tools serve purposes. I wouldnt say we are finely crafted, not by a long shot. We are merely created by intellect. The rest is a mystery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets see, evidence ...

Foot, hand, eye, ear, mind, heart, and will.

All these are tools. Tools serve purposes. I wouldnt say we are finely crafted, not by a long shot. We are merely created by intellect. The rest is a mystery.

That does not appear to be evidence.

 

[osgart]

That does not appear to be evidence.

What would it take for you though?

 

[Thief]

Lets see, evidence ...

Foot, hand, eye, ear, mind, heart, and will.

All these are tools. Tools serve purposes. I wouldnt say we are finely crafted, not by a long shot. We are merely created by intellect. The rest is a mystery.

you did touch upon the purpose....

we are here to learn all that we can before we die
a unique spirit forms with each occasion of living

then we present ourselves to God and heaven
(reference to the preamble of Job)

there is no mystery as to why we are here

 

[Subduction Zone]

What would it take for you though?

Glad to be of service. This would count as a scientific claim, so scientific evidence would be best:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

Trying to teach Thief, Deeje and other creationists, is like talking to doorknobs. They don't want to learn, they refuse to learn, and they are willing to lie and twist words around to meet their agenda.

There is a difference between accepting facts that are proven, and suggestions that are mere supposition.

Its not that we are "unwilling to learn", but that we are unable to swallow what you already have. There is no twisting of words on our part, science does that by calling things by names that have other meanings. Meeting an agenda is about selling your proposition....science wants to sell us something that looks like junk. I am not buying it.....you can if you think its worth what it costs.