dad2

On the issue of scholars thinking the word Adam is associated with the colour red, here are a few links "Adam (אדם) literally means "red", and there is an etymological connection between adam and adamah, adamah designating "red clay" or "red ground" in a non-theological context.[7] In traditional Jewish theology, a strong etymological connection between the two words is often assumed. Maimonides believed the word adam to be derived from the word adamah, analogous to the way in which mankind was created from the ground.[8] In contemporary biblical scholarship there is a general consensus that the words have an etymological relationship, but the exact nature of it is disputed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamah " Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with the Greek and Hebrew: 119. âdam to show blood (in the face) i.e. flush or turn away—be dyed, made) red (ruddy). 120. âdâm ruddy, i.e. a human being 127. àdâmâh ground: soil (from its gen. Redness), country, earth, ground. ADAM, the name of the man created in the image of God appears to be derived from the Hebrew ddam which means “he or it was red or rudy”, like Edom. It apparently refers to the ground from which he was formed, which in the Hebrew is Adamah which is derived from (119) which means red" https://biblesearch.com/what-does-adam-mean/ As mentioned, the word is associated by scholars with red.Also, as mentioned, it doesn't matter what type of dirt God used. I hazarded a guess as I stated clearly about what sort of dirt it could have been. You seem to want to argue about nothing and accuse falsely as well as divert from the topic and meaningful issues.

Since we do not know what dirt God used, who cares what scholars think? What is your problem?

I don't say it was any way. I gave a definition of the Hebrew word and there were a dozen possible meanings. I don't see God had any problem using the kind of dirt He wanted. No one says you need to know precisely what kind that was. For creating man, if I were to guess I would guess reddish dusty dirt. " Most scholars believe that the words adamah, Adam, and Edom stem from a root word with the basic meaning of “red.” The word adamah could then be more literally translated “red ground,” and the name Adam could be said to mean “red man” or “man from the red dirt.” https://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-adamah.html

It didn't say or suggest that the dirt evolved animal life in 6 seconds. It said God made them. Since it also mentions that the used the earth, (As He also did with Adam) we know that in one day of one evening and one morning that God created all kinds of animals and used the earth in doing so

Looking at one bible dictionary I see this Brown-Driver-Briggs' 1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish 1a) dry or loose earth 1b) debris 1c) mortar 1d) ore That is a dozen right there.

No. He used the earth in creating them. The earth itself no more created the animals than it did Adam. God used the dirt and formed it like clay into a man. Then He gave life to the form. Then He took a woman from a bone of that man. Neither were descended from any other person or animal.

Because we KNOW God made them. So using the earth is not a primary concern and does not change the fact He created them. No more than His using a rib from Adam changes the fact He created Eve. Or His using dust of the earth to from a man changes the fact He did it. The time in which He did it is also given, both in days and in evenings and mornings. So there is zero chance that this can be associated with evolution.

Why would I care what sort of dust God used to form man exactly?

Believing the bible that God gave us does not make us God, it makes us believers. There is a lot in this earth that appears and that is because it was created. Nowhere did God say that anything that was made 'arose' without Him. On the contrary. Without Him was NOT anything made that was made. Whether He formed the man from the dust or a woman from the bone of the man, or animals from the earth, He made them all. It was not spontaneous combustion. Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. God making it was God's way. Lots of things form on earth. It is full of life. Babies form in the womb. That does not mean God did not form Adam out of the womb. You deny creation and obsess on any little process that is a result of creation, trying to give it the credit for creation. Quite a circular little religion you have there. As we all have learned from the verse I just posted it actually says God made them. There is no science that can say God created or not. It is not by science that we know He did. There is no science that says God did not do exactly what He claimed and made it all.

Nothing is feasible that has no support and only conjecture, especially when God tells us otherwise Looking at the moon that was likely bomblasted by earth debris in the past (flood year, etc) as well as asteroids that also possibly had an earth origin, it does not mean that what we find there started there. Since the flood covered the earth in the waters (or much of them) that we now have, we cannot say what pre flood causes may have happened. You seek to attribute all things to a godless scenario Mixing things in a created water and created planet is not creating things. How things now tend to group doesn't matter. There was no such thing as some prebiotic planet. That is an invention and fantasy you need. Unless we are talking the first few days of creation before life was made. There is no reason from any science to claim that He did not Personally form man as He said and operate on the man to make a woman. No evidence suggests otherwise. The context of God bring forth life from the earth was on a day creation week.

Yes, in your own words, using link as support, or quoting a bit from link. From your link "In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life. But, as discussed earlier, a detailed understanding of that process will have to wait until ongoing studies in systems chemistry reveal both the classes of chemical materials and the kinds of chemical pathways that simple replicating systems are able to follow in their drive towards greater complexity and replicative stability." So total ignoramuses then. OK. Total speculation and belief. Thanks for that All of it opposes a creation by God.

A load is a great word for supposed evidence for the first lifeform. Not the tiniest shred of evidence actually. Offer some and find out. In other words if you totally disbelieve and mutilate Genesis you can pretend that you still believe some of it. We get it. The thing is you cannot do that with actual bible believers. That tells us who your target audience is here. The weak. The uninformed. The confused. Those who have not yet come to a knowledge of the lord and belief. (or those who rejected it)

Evidence for the first lifeform? Evidence that nature on earth was the same in Noah's time? No. None. What they do is molest evidence with belief based convictions. Two can play at that game. As for the theory of evolution, the standard model in cosmology, the big bang, stellar evolution, abiogenesis and deep time modelling, they all deal with things Genesis talks about. That also all diametrically oppose Genesis. You cannot have seriously thought that was coincidence.

We all understand that there are more than one theory dealing with the aspects of genesis creation and origins. The theory of evolution deals with where man came from, although not all the way down to the imaginary first lifeform. They stop somewhere after the flatworm as being family with man! Ha Actually science assumes and believes when it comes to all issues involving origins. There can be no denying that fact.

There are several areas of 'science' that claim to deal in origins. They all deal in evolution of some sort. If you are pretending that I do not know what the the actual 'theory of evolution' because I dislike all of the evo fables then you are desperate as well as deceptive. How about just admit you swallow them all and believe in them with a whole heart?

What sort of dirt or dust God used doesn't matter. We are not told. I am surprised you tried to make a mountain out of that. What does matter is that we believe it. Do you?

Why did you make that up? Did I say I did not believe something in the bible?

His creation is wonderful. As for the dust God used to form man, it doesn't matter.

Information shows that a creator was involved. Having information involved also in small lifeforms does not mean that animals and mankind came from small lifeforms. God passed information to man about where we came from. It is called Scripture.

Yes all God's creations are amazing.

No one said we were to pick out one of the Satanic alternative creation theories and pretend it is the only one that exists or matters. The conflation of so called science theories dealing with origins are all evil and lies. That includes the theory of evolution. Your attempt to defend that lie by a strawman argument pretending other posters think that all such theories are labelled with the the same name in science is laughable. The bible is clear. Stop pretending you believe it. We believers have the mind of God and know that He created it all, and when and how. It is not a matter of debate but a matter of believe it or not.

The truth is that many areas of science deal with origins. Denial is futile. Whether someone claims a flatworm is related by a common ancestor to man, or they claim we crawled out of a pond doesn't matter. It is all of the same spirit. They all are lies and phony science that cannot be supported. If anyone looked to Jesus and made some effort to believe His word then He would keep them from falling headlong into the delusions and lies such as you have done. Instead we see hollow diversion tactics and a pretense of some sort of victorious or strong position from you. Abiogenesis and evolution, stellar or biological all oppose God and His word to man directly. Lurkers, be certain they are the voices of devils and lies designed to cast doubt on God and His word, and doom as many as possible. That is the name of the game and you have clearly chosen sides.

All theories that deal with origins, whether of stars of man or the moon, etc are related. This cannot be denied. None give God the glory or credit for anything. You have admitted here you do not believe in God creating, so not sure why you maintain a pretense of being a believer.

Lurkers, in case you had any doubt where this poster was coming from that should clear it up.

I have no trouble. I did not have to scurry like a rat trying to rename a branch of science that dealt with the early stages of the fable of evolution. Nor do I try to deny that the theory of evolution is joined at the hip of it's sister lying theories like stellar evolution, Abiogenesis, etc These all have one thing (spirit) in common, they try to cast doubt on God and His word.