[N0help4u]

The Bible declares that God created man from the dust of the earth just over 6,000 years ago. It teaches that he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living soul. The Hebrew word Adam means “red dirt” or “ruddy,” and rightfully so, since Adam was made from red clay. The following excerpt is from B. Cooper’s book, “After The Flood:”

Dirt: This is Truax’s English rendering of the original name, not a transposition. It is clearly meant to portray Adam, the version of whose name in the Miautso language (as in Hebrew, Akkadian and so on), means earth or clay, the substance from which he was created. [End of quote]

The famed historian Josephus, who wrote shortly after the death and resurrection of Christ had this to say concerning Adam: “This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.” [End of quote]

The idea of God making man out of dirt, as far as unbelievers are concerned, is absurd. In a recent Newsweek magazine article titled, “Life From Clay,” the following story was printed:

As if the Biblical tale of man’s creation from “the dust of the ground” were haunting their unconscious minds, NASA chemists have presented evidence that life on earth may have gotten its start in clay. They have shown that clays attract the organic molecules that make up protein and DNA, the ingredients of life, possibly from the sea during high tides. The clays might then trigger chemical reactions that string the building blocks into proteins and DNA.

The latest experiments show how, according to NASA’s Lelia Coyne, clays scavenge energy released by such natural processes as radioactive decay. They store the energy in the form of trapped electrons and then release it when subjected to stress – an earthquake, for example, or from wetting and drying as the tides rise and recede. Says Coyne, the ability of clays to store energy, catalyze reactions and perhaps self-replicate – all attributes of living systems – “is forcing us to re-examine at a very fundamental level the definition of life.”

It is common knowledge that the chemical and mineral content of a person’s body is identical to the earth’s. Everyone knows that when a person dies, their body turns back to dust.

GODSAIDMANSAID.COM - WELCOME TO THE TRUTH

[tickle]

I would have to say 'what is the point', not 'what is the ?'.

[N0help4u]

The point is that the Bible said man came from red clay. If the Bible was written by primitive man why would he connect the two and thousands of years later NASA is connecting what Genesis said and MAN has laughed at the idea.

[Choux]

There is really not a way to justify the stories of the Bible with scientific knowledge or recent discoveries. Christianity and science have nothing in common. Christianity is based on faith/belief in Holy Scriptures. Science want to discover facts about creation through trial and error experiments.

[Fr_Chuck]

But in the end it will show the bible correct. Guess most of the scientists are wasting their time, if they just believed the bible to start with, they would have saved a lot of time and money

[N0help4u]

But in the end it will show the bible correct. Guess most of the scientists are wasting thier time, if they just beleived the bible to start with, they would have saved alot of time and money

EXACTLY

Murray 'discovered' underwater ocean currents by reading the Bible

[jillianleab]

Maybe I'm missing something... but wouldn't Christians want this to be untrue? Follow me here:

For those of you who feel the bible is the literal truth, you believe Adam and Eve are the "parents" of everyone. God created Adam whole, not in little microorganisms. So, if this theory were proven true, that life originated from clay, that would disprove the bible (well, the Adam and Eve part, anyway).

Not trying to cause a fight or start and arugument, I just don't see how this being proven would be a good thing for Christianity.

[N0help4u]

The Bible says that God created man from the dirt of the ground.
Translated original text is red clay.

[jillianleab]

I get that, and certainly I see where the similarity is. If you are someone who does not believe the bible and the story of Adam and Eve to be the literal truth, but rather a metaphor, or simply a story, then proving life began in clay would show "proof" in the bible. But if you believe god created Adam whole, as a whole human, and that the story of Adam and Eve is absolute truth, proving life began in clay would disprove that. Do you see what I'm saying? If science ever proves how life began (beyond any doubt), it automatically disproves the bible. So it would seem to me that one who believes the bible to be the absolute truth would not want science to prove this, as it means the story of creation is untrue.

[Fr_Chuck]

No, christians follow and enjoy it when science follows and matches the bible. For example, the findings of various flood layers that show possible flood areas for the story of Noah that would have flooded the known world of that time.

[Galveston1]

Don't miss a major point here. How could Moses possibly know about the clay thing when he wrote Genesis circa 4,000 years ago? He couldn't have unless someone told him. Who knew? The only explanation that follows logic is; God told him. Mankind simply didn't know it until recently.

[jillianleab]

Ok, maybe I'm not explaining myself fully here. I understand the connection between this and the bible since the bible said god made Adam out of clay. But, if you believe the story of Adam and Eve to be absolute truth, you believe god made Adam as a whole man (not little microorganisms) from clay and then god made Eve. Together they populated the world. Right?

Science is now saying it is possible life originated in clay. It is not saying a mud-covered man popped out of the ground. :) It's saying clay has the right elements to create tiny itty bitty life, which evolves into the life we have now. Right?

So, if this theory were proven true, that tiny, itty bitty microorganisms formed in clay, and those organisms evolved into life as we know it now, the story of Adam and Eve is disproven, at least as a literal, absolute truth. It is disproven because a mud covered man didn't pop out of the ground, but rather tiny mud covered microorganisms.

BUT if you do not believe the bible to be the absolute truth, but rather a book of stories inspired by god (Noah's flood wasn't real, Adam and Eve wasn't real, both were lessons to be taught by god) then this theory being proven would be great. If you don't have to be concerned with a mud covered man popping out of the ground, you just think "Life began in clay because that's what the bible says" then this theory being proven reinforces that belief, and could reinforce the belief the bible is inspired by god, because, as Galveston said, how could someone thousands of years ago have known that?

So I guess what I'm saying is, this theory might spell victory for some Christians, but it spells disaster for the ones who believe Adam popped out of the ground as a mud covered man.

Please... no one take offence to my "mud covered man"... just being silly, not disrespectful!

[g81413]

Everyone has an opinion and that is okay. Do we really know the answer? The answer can be found in God's Word. The Bible. God created all. How do I know this? Again the bible. In Romans 1:20 it says, God's eternal power and character cannot be seen. But from the beginning of creation, God has shown what these are like by all he has made. That's why those people (those that do not believe in God) don't have any excuse. This is God's Word. It all begins with faith. Believing in something that we have not seen. We just know in our hearts. God loves this about his children. So if God created man from the dust of the ground, than yes, that is what happened. And yes, the breath of life is God. You just have to believe and trust that God's word is TRUTH.

[N0help4u]

Yeah God said he took the unseen to create the things seen... atoms, molecules, DNA are all thing unseen that make all the things seen.

[Galveston1]

You know, Moses wrote about several things, not as science, but touching science, that are on the mark. Now, those who want to discredit the Bible have a dilemma. Did God tell Moses, (maybe He told Adam and a verbal record was passed down) or was Moses the greatest scientist of all time? If God told him, then he is right. If he is right by observation, then we need to pay attention to such genius. Either way, the Bible should be just as prominent in the classroom as the latest scientific theory. Not as religion, but as history and science to the degree that it (the Bible) addresses these subjects. Intelligent design.

[jillianleab]

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about science and the bible, it's accuracy, it's truth, intelligent design, etc, so I guess I will leave this subject alone. My intent was not to discredit the bible, or attempt to, only to point out it seems flawed to think if science proves this it proves the bible, since it would directly disprove the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. It hasn't been explained to me how this would be a good thing for bible literalists, but that's OK, it's not that important (to me). Apparently I see this theory and it's relation to the bible in a different way, which, considering I'm not a Christian is no surprise! :)

But either way, I don't want to turn this thread into yet another religion/science faith/no faith "fight". I have my opinion, you all have yours, and it's all OK! :)

[N0help4u]

My only point is what man 'discovers' God already knew.

[jillianleab]

My only point is what man 'discovers' God already knew.

I know, and I hope you don't think I was being rude for interjecting and asking such questions. I was just curious...

[N0help4u]

No it is good to question things. I am just not sure how to answer or what the answer is to what you are asking. Guess it is the perspective thing :D