Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another interesting question for Atheists...

Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

How and when was it determined that it's possible for the universe to have come from nothing? How does one even arrive at the conclusion that there was ever a point of nothing? Big-bang certainly suggests no such thing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:02:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

How and when was it determined that it's possible for the universe to have come from nothing? How does one even arrive at the conclusion that there was ever a point of nothing? Big-bang certainly suggests no such thing.

I do not have a degree in theoretical physics, although in every single debate that I have ever had opposing the Big Bang, the pro side always states creation Ex Nihilo, "From Nothing." and that the causation of the singularity was in a "higher" dimension than our own. Indeed, this is actually the most widely accepted notion involving the big bang that Secularism has produced thus far. So, in answer to your response, the big bang obviously suggests it, because the most predominant minds involved in the development of the theory support it.

Now that I have cleared this up, I would love to hear your response on the original question...

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:27:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:08:35 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:02:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

How and when was it determined that it's possible for the universe to have come from nothing? How does one even arrive at the conclusion that there was ever a point of nothing? Big-bang certainly suggests no such thing.

I do not have a degree in theoretical physics
I never suggested you did.

although in every single debate that I have ever had opposing the Big Bang, the pro side always states creation Ex Nihilo, "From Nothing."
With whom have you been debating? I'll be happy to show them that they're incorrect.
In fact, if you have a look at "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg, "Endless Universe; Before the Big Bang" by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, or "Hidden in Plain Sight" (which focuses on quantum gravity but touches on concepts of the universe) by Andrew Thomas, it will help to confirm what I've said.

and that the causation of the singularity was in a "higher" dimension than our own.
How do you define a dimension as being "higher"? But this demonstrates my point; the singularity was NOT nothing. And there are alternative versions of big-bang cosmology as well, employing energy, or brane-worlds. None of them begin ex-nihilo.

Indeed, this is actually the most widely accepted notion involving the big bang that Secularism has produced thus far. So, in answer to your response, the big bang obviously suggests it, because the most predominant minds involved in the development of the theory support it.
Sorry, you are incorrect. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok are two of the leading physicists in big-bang cosmology today, and they're working from the proposition of pre-existing brane worlds. Older versions tend to look to a pre-existing singularity, and still other versions suggest that our matter/energy universe once existed in a energy-only state. None of these suggests creation from nothing, or "creation" at all.

In fact, if you look to the First Law of Thermodynamics, creation is simply not possible. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And while some try to evade that by suggesting this may not hold true "outside of the universe", the mere suggestion of such a place (outside of the universe), is contrary to the concept of a universe. There is no "outside of the universe". It's not like you travel to the perimeter of the universe, punch through, and there is anything beyond that. The universe is everything.

Now that I have cleared this up, I would love to hear your response on the original question...
You have not cleared it up. At best, you have explained how it became clouded. I have no intention of answering a question constructed on a false premise, as that would require an intentionally erroneous response.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:52:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

You need to get out more. The creationist websites possess no intelligent content.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:12:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

What would you suggest to be the water content of "dust"? Human bodies contain more water than all other materials combined. If you break that down to hydrogen and oxygen, it accounts for about 75% of a human body.

"Mud" might have made a little sense (though not much). But claiming man was made from dust and God's breath is kinda silly.

It's just bizarre that we live in a time of Internet, smartphones, GPS, satellite television and supercolliders and yet, we still have people - a LOT of people - who continue to subscribe to ancient stories no more sophisticated or rationally believable than Dr. Seuss stories.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 11:56:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:12:00 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

What would you suggest to be the water content of "dust"? Human bodies contain more water than all other materials combined. If you break that down to hydrogen and oxygen, it accounts for about 75% of a human body.

"Mud" might have made a little sense (though not much). But claiming man was made from dust and God's breath is kinda silly.

It's just bizarre that we live in a time of Internet, smartphones, GPS, satellite television and supercolliders and yet, we still have people - a LOT of people - who continue to subscribe to ancient stories no more sophisticated or rationally believable than Dr. Seuss stories.

The first half there was good. In the future, I would keep the Ad Hominem at the end to yourself. It is bad conduct, rude, and has no point.

So, your position is that man cannot have come from dust because of lack of elementary needs, yet a universe can come into existence from nothing with no cause other than its own necessity. Interesting enough, but not sound.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 12:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:52:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

You need to get out more. The creationist websites possess no intelligent content.

How is this even constructive? Keep your responses limited to answering the question

I know you disagree with Christianity, but that doesn't mean you can't argue rationally.
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 12:47:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:27:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:08:35 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/19/2014 9:02:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

How and when was it determined that it's possible for the universe to have come from nothing? How does one even arrive at the conclusion that there was ever a point of nothing? Big-bang certainly suggests no such thing.

I do not have a degree in theoretical physics
I never suggested you did.

although in every single debate that I have ever had opposing the Big Bang, the pro side always states creation Ex Nihilo, "From Nothing."
With whom have you been debating? I'll be happy to show them that they're incorrect.
In fact, if you have a look at "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg, "Endless Universe; Before the Big Bang" by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, or "Hidden in Plain Sight" (which focuses on quantum gravity but touches on concepts of the universe) by Andrew Thomas, it will help to confirm what I've said.

and that the causation of the singularity was in a "higher" dimension than our own.
How do you define a dimension as being "higher"? But this demonstrates my point; the singularity was NOT nothing. And there are alternative versions of big-bang cosmology as well, employing energy, or brane-worlds. None of them begin ex-nihilo.

Indeed, this is actually the most widely accepted notion involving the big bang that Secularism has produced thus far. So, in answer to your response, the big bang obviously suggests it, because the most predominant minds involved in the development of the theory support it.
Sorry, you are incorrect. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok are two of the leading physicists in big-bang cosmology today, and they're working from the proposition of pre-existing brane worlds. Older versions tend to look to a pre-existing singularity, and still other versions suggest that our matter/energy universe once existed in a energy-only state. None of these suggests creation from nothing, or "creation" at all.

In fact, if you look to the First Law of Thermodynamics, creation is simply not possible. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And while some try to evade that by suggesting this may not hold true "outside of the universe", the mere suggestion of such a place (outside of the universe), is contrary to the concept of a universe. There is no "outside of the universe". It's not like you travel to the perimeter of the universe, punch through, and there is anything beyond that. The universe is everything.

Now that I have cleared this up, I would love to hear your response on the original question...
You have not cleared it up. At best, you have explained how it became clouded. I have no intention of answering a question constructed on a false premise, as that would require an intentionally erroneous response.

I'll only respond to this last part, because my time is currently limited...
So, are you stating with 100% certainty that your belief in the big bang is dependent on the universe being eternal? If so, excellent. All Christianity has to do is wait. If not, then you must retract your last statement there. You claim that the premise of a finite universe is false

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:41:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 12:41:15 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:52:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

You need to get out more. The creationist websites possess no intelligent content.

How is this even constructive? Keep your responses limited to answering the question
It's not meant to be constructive, it's meant to be derisory because your question is simply ignorant. If you need that explained then any further discussion is pointless.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 11:08:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Um, some observations:
1. The premise of your question is pure ignorance.
2. The evidence clearly shows that there was no Adam and Eve with no pre-cursors. The idea is preposterous. (Genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees).
3. Minimum viable population to avoid a genetic bottleneck. Destroys Noah story too.
4. Why would a god require dust?

Just a dumb, flame-bait question.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:28:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing,

No one says this.

then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It just didn't happen.

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:41:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:41:15 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:52:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

You need to get out more. The creationist websites possess no intelligent content.

How is this even constructive? Keep your responses limited to answering the question
It's not meant to be constructive, it's meant to be derisory because your question is simply ignorant. If you need that explained then any further discussion is pointless.

ahh now we're getting somewhere... Why is my question ignorant?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:23:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 11:08:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Um, some observations:
1. The premise of your question is pure ignorance.
2. The evidence clearly shows that there was no Adam and Eve with no pre-cursors. The idea is preposterous. (Genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees).
3. Minimum viable population to avoid a genetic bottleneck. Destroys Noah story too.
4. Why would a god require dust?

Just a dumb, flame-bait question.

1. Explain why, even if it is obvious
2. Do you claim to have all of the evidence?
2b. explain your point of genetic similarity.
3. So what you're postulating is that all of humanity cannot have come from two beings? Explain why not (Yes, I understand the point you're making, but you have cannot simply throw things out there like that. You have to provide the "Why" and "Why not" when you state an assumption)
4. He did not require dust. He chose to make them from the dust.

Not a flame-bait question. I put two theories side by side in which one is unprovable, and asked why the unprovable one is more likely than the provable one

Before you respond, I will remind you to keep the Ad Hominem out of the argument...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:28:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I am not an atheist, but I do know enough about science to be able to answer this question.

Quantum gravity would allow spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence.
Quantum vacuum fluctuations would allow virtual particles to fluctuate in and out of existence.
Given an infinite amount of time (which can be substituted for an infinite amount of imaginary time), it would be guaranteed that a universe will form from nothing.

Now, dust does not, as far as anyone knows, have the capability to transform into complex life. Abiogenesis is a slow process that creates very simple life.

The difference is that science supports the ability for a universe to form ex nihilo, but it does not support the ability for dust to form into a person.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 7:28:22 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing,

No one says this.

So what you're saying is that
1. No one believes that the universe came from nothing (A hefty claim that I can easily reject)
2. There was something in existence before the universe (Which I would love to hear your take on)

then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It just didn't happen.

At the risk of sounding petulant, how do you know? Are you prepared to state with 100% certainty that such a thing could have happened, but that it didn't? If you are prepared to do so, then you must show with 100% certainty that you know exactly how it happened, which not even secular science can establish. They argue that all life came from a single cell, but they do not know how that cell came about or evolved in the way that it did. Theories range from the ridiculous of "A cell in a shallow stream was hit by lightning" to the even more ridiculous of "It was there in the big bang and needed no further assistance"

You must state with 100% certainty right here, your proposition of how life came to be, or you must forfeit your point.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:48:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 12:33:30 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/21/2014 7:28:22 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing,

No one says this.

So what you're saying is that
1. No one believes that the universe came from nothing (A hefty claim that I can easily reject)
2. There was something in existence before the universe (Which I would love to hear your take on)

I'm saying neither and the suggestion that those are my only two choices is a false dichotomy. I don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from. But, more importantly, I don't even know asking about "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from are coherent questions.

There may not even be a "before" the Big Bang and it may be the case that the universe didn't "come" at all, whether from something or nothing. It could be that the universe just "is."


then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It just didn't happen.

At the risk of sounding petulant, how do you know?

Because dust consists of particulate matter, either organic or inorganic. Our origins are organic, so that rules out inorganic particulate matter and the organic matter hypothesized to be our origins was immersed in water and did not comprise dry particles that could reasonably be called "dust."

Furthermore, humans are not descendant from two individuals, so there are no viable candidates for an Adam or an Eve.

Are you prepared to state with 100% certainty that such a thing could have happened, but that it didn't?

I am 100% certain that it didn't happen that way.

If you are prepared to do so, then you must show with 100% certainty that you know exactly how it happened, which not even secular science can establish.

I'll concede that science is incapable of convincing everyone else, with 100% of its conclusions. I'm not particularly willing to chalk that up as the fault of science, though.

They argue that all life came from a single cell, but they do not know how that cell came about or evolved in the way that it did. Theories range from the ridiculous of "A cell in a shallow stream was hit by lightning"

No theory suggests that.

to the even more ridiculous of "It was there in the big bang and needed no further assistance"

No theory suggests that either.

Currently there aren't any theories about the origin of life. Based on what we know, we are limited to a variety of hypothesis, each with different pros and cons.

You must state with 100% certainty right here, your proposition of how life came to be, or you must forfeit your point.

I don't have to do either. You asked me a question, and I answered. The fact of the matter is, no evidence even suggests the existence of an Adam and Eve pair, so I am confident in dismissing the idea. So it's really immaterial to discuss where these fictional individuals might have come from.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:14:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 12:48:46 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/21/2014 12:33:30 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/21/2014 7:28:22 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing,

No one says this.

So what you're saying is that
1. No one believes that the universe came from nothing (A hefty claim that I can easily reject)
2. There was something in existence before the universe (Which I would love to hear your take on)

I'm saying neither and the suggestion that those are my only two choices is a false dichotomy. I don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from. But, more importantly, I don't even know asking about "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from are coherent questions.

There may not even be a "before" the Big Bang and it may be the case that the universe didn't "come" at all, whether from something or nothing. It could be that the universe just "is."

I have you on quote as saying "[in response to the universe coming from nothing] No one believes that."
Second, I am not saying that those are your only two choices. I am re-stating what you have already said yourself.
Third, so the universe exists by its own necessity and is infinite in past? ("It could be that the universe just "is."")
Now you're saying that you don't know how it happened. Why then, is my belief impossible?

then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It just didn't happen.

At the risk of sounding petulant, how do you know?

Because dust consists of particulate matter, either organic or inorganic. Our origins are organic, so that rules out inorganic particulate matter and the organic matter hypothesized to be our origins was immersed in water and did not comprise dry particles that could reasonably be called "dust."

Furthermore, humans are not descendant from two individuals, so there are no viable candidates for an Adam or an Eve.

Firstly, I can get behind you on the semantics of dust. May I then, propose the belief that it was not literally dust, but the organic material found in the ground? I pose this question, not because of the supposed impossibility of life from dust, but because different translations word that section differently. "Dust of the earth" in one translation may very well refer to the size of particle that God created life from.

In the above here, this is my attempt to say that it may not be literal. It is my attempt to try and find middle ground of possibility that we can agree upon.

Are you prepared to state with 100% certainty that such a thing could have happened, but that it didn't?

I am 100% certain that it didn't happen that way.
If you are prepared to do so, then you must show with 100% certainty that you know exactly how it happened, which not even secular science can establish.

I'll concede that science is incapable of convincing everyone else, with 100% of its conclusions. I'm not particularly willing to chalk that up as the fault of science, though.

So, you are 100% certain that this is the way that man came to be, but you are unable to prove it. Ok, that is reasonable. I am the same way in my belief in God. We must simply agree to disagree.

They argue that all life came from a single cell, but they do not know how that cell came about or evolved in the way that it did. Theories range from the ridiculous of "A cell in a shallow stream was hit by lightning"

No theory suggests that.

Haha I politely beg to differ, my friend...
The Miller-Urey experiment prompted that lightning could have jump-started life, but also that the cell hit would have needed to exist in or near water beforehand.

to the even more ridiculous of "It was there in the big bang and needed no further assistance"

No theory suggests that either.

That one I also believe that no major scientists hold to. However, it has not stopped six people from prompting the very theory in argument against me.

Currently there aren't any theories about the origin of life. Based on what we know, we are limited to a variety of hypothesis, each with different pros and cons.

So, you are 100% certain that your theory on life's origin is correct, but there are currently no theories on such an event. Okay

You must state with 100% certainty right here, your proposition of how life came to be, or you must forfeit your point.

I don't have to do either. You asked me a question, and I answered. The fact of the matter is, no evidence even suggests the existence of an Adam and Eve pair, so I am confident in dismissing the idea. So it's really immaterial to discuss where these fictional individuals might have come from.

You must state with 100% certainty, because you have stated that my belief is 100% wrong. To state that something is necessarily impossible, you have shouldered yourself with the burden of proof, thus requiring your own theory to be stated and accepted invariably.

Lastly, confidence is never 100%. I have known too many statisticians to make the mistake of stating 100% confidence in anything.

A great conversation so far, though
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:14:47 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/21/2014 12:48:46 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/21/2014 12:33:30 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/21/2014 7:28:22 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing,

No one says this.

So what you're saying is that
1. No one believes that the universe came from nothing (A hefty claim that I can easily reject)
2. There was something in existence before the universe (Which I would love to hear your take on)

I'm saying neither and the suggestion that those are my only two choices is a false dichotomy. I don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from. But, more importantly, I don't even know asking about "before" the Big Bang or where the universe "came" from are coherent questions.

There may not even be a "before" the Big Bang and it may be the case that the universe didn't "come" at all, whether from something or nothing. It could be that the universe just "is."

I have you on quote as saying "[in response to the universe coming from nothing] No one believes that."

Correct. As a generalization of what atheists "believe" it's incorrect.

Second, I am not saying that those are your only two choices. I am re-stating what you have already said yourself.

I never said either of those things.

Third, so the universe exists by its own necessity and is infinite in past? ("It could be that the universe just "is."")

That's a possibility, sure. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's a possibility outside the ones you highlighted.

Now you're saying that you don't know how it happened. Why then, is my belief impossible?

Because it contradicts all known science.

then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. It just didn't happen.

At the risk of sounding petulant, how do you know?

Because dust consists of particulate matter, either organic or inorganic. Our origins are organic, so that rules out inorganic particulate matter and the organic matter hypothesized to be our origins was immersed in water and did not comprise dry particles that could reasonably be called "dust."

Furthermore, humans are not descendant from two individuals, so there are no viable candidates for an Adam or an Eve.

Firstly, I can get behind you on the semantics of dust. May I then, propose the belief that it was not literally dust, but the organic material found in the ground? I pose this question, not because of the supposed impossibility of life from dust, but because different translations word that section differently. "Dust of the earth" in one translation may very well refer to the size of particle that God created life from.

In the above here, this is my attempt to say that it may not be literal. It is my attempt to try and find middle ground of possibility that we can agree upon.

Then it seems odd that you would focus on the most inconsequential part of my response. Ok, so the dust thing is semantics. It's also irrelevant because humanity did not descend from a single pair of humans. So we needn't even discuss where that pair came from: they didn't exist.

Are you prepared to state with 100% certainty that such a thing could have happened, but that it didn't?

I am 100% certain that it didn't happen that way.
If you are prepared to do so, then you must show with 100% certainty that you know exactly how it happened, which not even secular science can establish.

I'll concede that science is incapable of convincing everyone else, with 100% of its conclusions. I'm not particularly willing to chalk that up as the fault of science, though.

So, you are 100% certain that this is the way that man came to be, but you are unable to prove it. Ok, that is reasonable. I am the same way in my belief in God. We must simply agree to disagree.

Of only God was as open-minded. As it is, it appears he is going to punish me for eternity over this "disagreement." Which is a shame, because he could easily prove his side.

They argue that all life came from a single cell, but they do not know how that cell came about or evolved in the way that it did. Theories range from the ridiculous of "A cell in a shallow stream was hit by lightning"

No theory suggests that.

Haha I politely beg to differ, my friend...
The Miller-Urey experiment prompted that lightning could have jump-started life, but also that the cell hit would have needed to exist in or near water beforehand.

The Miller-Urey experiment is not a theory.

to the even more ridiculous of "It was there in the big bang and needed no further assistance"

No theory suggests that either.

That one I also believe that no major scientists hold to. However, it has not stopped six people from prompting the very theory in argument against me.

I don't think you understand what a theory is.

Currently there aren't any theories about the origin of life. Based on what we know, we are limited to a variety of hypothesis, each with different pros and cons.

So, you are 100% certain that your theory on life's origin is correct, but there are currently no theories on such an event. Okay

I never presented a theory on life's origin.

You must state with 100% certainty right here, your proposition of how life came to be, or you must forfeit your point.

I don't have to do either. You asked me a question, and I answered. The fact of the matter is, no evidence even suggests the existence of an Adam and Eve pair, so I am confident in dismissing the idea. So it's really immaterial to discuss where these fictional individuals might have come from.

You must state with 100% certainty, because you have stated that my belief is 100% wrong. To state that something is necessarily impossible, you have shouldered yourself with the burden of proof, thus requiring your own theory to be stated and accepted invariably.

Incorrect. It is not necessary to provide and prove a theory of my own in order to recognize your statements as false.

Lastly, confidence is never 100%. I have known too many statisticians to make the mistake of stating 100% confidence in anything.

Well, you're the one that started with the 100% nonsense.

A great conversation so far, though
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
TuterKing
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?
..
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I do not feel the first part of your question is right, since I do not feel the universe could come from nothing. But to the second part I would say, well no, it is not impossible. They would have been made from dust and this is not unreasonable at all. But then again so is the world, so is the moon, so is every living and non living thing in the universe. Everything is made by the dust left over from the big bang and stars being made and being destroyed. From this though I ask why couldn't an almighty god make them from nothing? By using dust this would lead to more of a thought that if they did exist they would have been made by some highly intelligent being that is not all powerful. So is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust? No, but if they were this would lead one to believe it was not god but rather something less powerful.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 12:23:05 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/20/2014 11:08:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Um, some observations:
1. The premise of your question is pure ignorance.
2. The evidence clearly shows that there was no Adam and Eve with no pre-cursors. The idea is preposterous. (Genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees).
3. Minimum viable population to avoid a genetic bottleneck. Destroys Noah story too.
4. Why would a god require dust?

Just a dumb, flame-bait question.

1. Explain why, even if it is obvious

Beastt has already done so. Why ask for it again unless you either don't read the responses to the topics that you start or you are trolling.

2. Do you claim to have all of the evidence?

What does that mean? Is there some evidence missing that we don't know about but you are privvy to? Put it forward then.

2b. explain your point of genetic similarity.

It's common knowledge. Look it up for yourself if you are really interested. I doubt you are.

3. So what you're postulating is that all of humanity cannot have come from two beings? Explain why not (Yes, I understand the point you're making, but you have cannot simply throw things out there like that. You have to provide the "Why" and "Why not" when you state an assumption).

It's not an assumption. This scientific work has been done in relation to space colonisation - interstellar colony ships. It has been determined that the MVP for humans is in the large hundreds to low thousands. Look it up.

4. He did not require dust. He chose to make them from the dust.

How would you know? Who was there to record this event? Ridiculous bare assertions.

Not a flame-bait question. I put two theories side by side in which one is unprovable, and asked why the unprovable one is more likely than the provable one.

Provable? Are you serious? Prove it then.

Before you respond, I will remind you to keep the Ad Hominem out of the argument...

Always.
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

because one is magic while one isnt. one is cause and effect and one is magic. you cant make life out of dirt alone unless your magic. the universe could have gotten here without magic for all we know. and things seem random to any rational person. when everything thats possible happens then you should assume there is no god. but if like 2
percent of whats possible happened or something like that then i would expect there to be a god up there. but theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. theres ugly people pretty people and everything in between. theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. its like that with everything. with everything theres a scale from one to ten one being as bad as it can be with ten being as good as it can be, and everything on that scale happens. its fuc*ed up if its the work of a being. what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very broad set of things so i know the saying everything happens for a reason isnt true. not to mention that means we dont have free will. if we have free will things happen for our reasons which arent almost ever good reasons.
TuterKing
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:20:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 8:55:06 PM, steffon66 wrote:

because one is magic while one isnt. one is cause and effect and one is magic. you cant make life out of dirt alone unless your magic. the universe could have gotten here without magic for all we know. and things seem random to any rational person. when everything thats possible happens then you should assume there is no god. but if like 2
percent of whats possible happened or something like that then i would expect there to be a god up there. but theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. theres ugly people pretty people and everything in between. theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. its like that with everything. with everything theres a scale from one to ten one being as bad as it can be with ten being as good as it can be, and everything on that scale happens. its fuc*ed up if its the work of a being. what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very broad set of things so i know the saying everything happens for a reason isnt true. not to mention that means we dont have free will. if we have free will things happen for our reasons which arent almost ever good reasons.

What? I'm sorry your post made no sense at all. You didn't even answer the question. It's so bad I actually want to defend the question. First off life is created by a dust of some sort, also known as elements. It is feasible to say that life could be crafted by this whether you say define intervention or nature doing its stuff. After that you made no sense at all. Put some thought into your post next time please.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 6:09:03 PM, TuterKing wrote:

I do not feel the first part of your question is right, since I do not feel the universe could come from nothing. But to the second part I would say, well no, it is not impossible. They would have been made from dust and this is not unreasonable at all. But then again so is the world, so is the moon, so is every living and non living thing in the universe. Everything is made by the dust left over from the big bang and stars being made and being destroyed. From this though I ask why couldn't an almighty god make them from nothing? By using dust this would lead to more of a thought that if they did exist they would have been made by some highly intelligent being that is not all powerful. So is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust? No, but if they were this would lead one to believe it was not god but rather something less powerful.

Yes, you are describing abiogenesis. He won't accept that though. He prefers to think that his god twiddled his thumbs for 13,699,994,000 years and then decided to gather up some dust to make Adam and Eve. Never mind the fossil evidence. Never mind the genetic evidence. Never mind the problem of inbreeding. Let's just go for the supernatural option. You have to face-palm and lament the lack of a proper, scientific education in some people.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 6:08:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The problem is, what do you mean by "dust"?

Even "the dust of the ground" varies in constitution sometimes even within a very small area.

So does "dust" simply reflect the idea that a human body is made of of many small particles, in fact chemicals?

Of course that raises the question of what the particles, chemicals, were created from?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:46:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 6:09:03 PM, TuterKing wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?
..
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I do not feel the first part of your question is right, since I do not feel the universe could come from nothing. But to the second part I would say, well no, it is not impossible. They would have been made from dust and this is not unreasonable at all. But then again so is the world, so is the moon, so is every living and non living thing in the universe. Everything is made by the dust left over from the big bang and stars being made and being destroyed. From this though I ask why couldn't an almighty god make them from nothing? By using dust this would lead to more of a thought that if they did exist they would have been made by some highly intelligent being that is not all powerful. So is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust? No, but if they were this would lead one to believe it was not god but rather something less powerful.

I too have pondered the "Why didn't God simply make man from nothing" question. I say "Didn't" instead of "Couldn't" because I know God could do such a thing. It furthers my own curiosity and allows me to accept the possibility (note that word) of macro evolution, because God clearly did not make mankind from nothing. There would be a reason for that, or else a piece of the story that we are missing (Meaning, it is possible that the "From the dust" could merely be the starting point, and mankind is the end result).

And as for the first part of my question, I am realizing with each response that I need to clear something up: Nothing in this dimension or existence. Pre-existence is not actually existence, but potentiality for existence. So, there was physically nothing before the universe, and then there was the universe. At risk of sounding Post Hoc, it came after nothing, therefore from nothing (as there is no other physical entity to have caused the universe to exist than the nothing itself, in this case, the pre-existent energy). To disagree would be to say that the universe exists necessarily, which many do not hold to.

That last part I am sure that I did not explain very well...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 8:04:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 8:55:06 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

because one is magic while one isnt. one is cause and effect and one is magic. you cant make life out of dirt alone unless your magic. the universe could have gotten here without magic for all we know. and things seem random to any rational person. when everything thats possible happens then you should assume there is no god. but if like 2
percent of whats possible happened or something like that then i would expect there to be a god up there. but theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. theres ugly people pretty people and everything in between. theres fat people skinny people and everything in between. its like that with everything. with everything theres a scale from one to ten one being as bad as it can be with ten being as good as it can be, and everything on that scale happens. its fuc*ed up if its the work of a being. what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very broad set of things so i know the saying everything happens for a reason isnt true. not to mention that means we dont have free will. if we have free will things happen for our reasons which arent almost ever good reasons.

Was that a rant, or was there anything in particular that you'd like me to respond to?

Honest question, posed comically...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 8:13:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:08:38 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The problem is, what do you mean by "dust"?

Even "the dust of the ground" varies in constitution sometimes even within a very small area.

So does "dust" simply reflect the idea that a human body is made of of many small particles, in fact chemicals?

Of course that raises the question of what the particles, chemicals, were created from?

An excellent point. I too have contemplated the possible interpretations of "Dust of the earth". Dust could simply be a reference to size of particle. Saying that, from the smallest of things, mankind was created. This is one of the reasons that I am open to the possibility of evolution: it may not (depending on how you view the soul) actually contradict Genesis' account. Even in the book of Job, it is said that mankind and animals came from the dust, and to dust they shall all return. Talk about a common ancestor! But this is only a possibility...

It gladdens me to find that someone else shares my openness to interpretation
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:10:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 8:13:09 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:08:38 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The problem is, what do you mean by "dust"?

Even "the dust of the ground" varies in constitution sometimes even within a very small area.

So does "dust" simply reflect the idea that a human body is made of of many small particles, in fact chemicals?

Of course that raises the question of what the particles, chemicals, were created from?

An excellent point. I too have contemplated the possible interpretations of "Dust of the earth". Dust could simply be a reference to size of particle. Saying that, from the smallest of things, mankind was created. This is one of the reasons that I am open to the possibility of evolution: it may not (depending on how you view the soul) actually contradict Genesis' account. Even in the book of Job, it is said that mankind and animals came from the dust, and to dust they shall all return. Talk about a common ancestor! But this is only a possibility...

It gladdens me to find that someone else shares my openness to interpretation
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

Well we all have a common creator - God.

I am not sure about openness of interpretation, but I have certainly never assumed that the person who tells me something actually knows what he is talking about, lol.

I believe there is only one valid understanding - the right one, and the least likely way to arrive at it is to listen to others without questioning what they say. Used to really annoy the my teachers in school, lol.

However one has to accept that, if we are created, as I believe, then everything in existence has a common start point, the one thing that God has in abundance - energy. To me a clue to that which I cannot see being gainsayed is the Atom Bomb. What a mass of energy from such a small amount of matter.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:52:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 10:10:23 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/22/2014 8:13:09 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:08:38 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:59:26 PM, Arasa wrote:
So, the last question that I asked is definitely providing some stimulating conversation. It has raised a somewhat similar question, however...

If it is possible for the universe to have come from nothing, then why is it impossible for Adam and Eve to have been made from the dust?

Again, no swearing and no name-calling please. I'm very aware of how smart you all are compared to me, but I like to hear the conversations play out. As it happens, I have asked this question of many people, and so I am confident that I have heard most of the answers you're about to give. That being said, have at it. Just remember to hit "Reply" for your initial responses so that I know when someone comments.

Looking forward to this one...
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The problem is, what do you mean by "dust"?

Even "the dust of the ground" varies in constitution sometimes even within a very small area.

So does "dust" simply reflect the idea that a human body is made of of many small particles, in fact chemicals?

Of course that raises the question of what the particles, chemicals, were created from?

An excellent point. I too have contemplated the possible interpretations of "Dust of the earth". Dust could simply be a reference to size of particle. Saying that, from the smallest of things, mankind was created. This is one of the reasons that I am open to the possibility of evolution: it may not (depending on how you view the soul) actually contradict Genesis' account. Even in the book of Job, it is said that mankind and animals came from the dust, and to dust they shall all return. Talk about a common ancestor! But this is only a possibility...

It gladdens me to find that someone else shares my openness to interpretation
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

Well we all have a common creator - God.
Wrong.
I am not sure about openness of interpretation, but I have certainly never assumed that the person who tells me something actually knows what he is talking about, lol.
hahahahahahahahaah
I believe there is only one valid understanding - the right one, and the least likely way to arrive at it is to listen to others without questioning what they say. Used to really annoy the my teachers in school, lol.
Your understanding is the right one...............................soon means at least 2k years. Dumb as dogshit.
However one has to accept that, if we are created, as I believe, then everything in existence has a common start point, the one thing that God has in abundance - energy. To me a clue to that which I cannot see being gainsayed is the Atom Bomb. What a mass of energy from such a small amount of matter.
Good for you stupid.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin