Assuming, just for the sake of discussion, that the claim is true that the human body and dirt or dust or whatever have exactly the same chemical composition, so what?
That is only a correlation. There is nothing here to show what might cause such a similarity - certainly nothing here to show that the body comes directly from dust. I doubt that any evolutionary scientist would be puzzled to find that organisms growing and living on the surface of the earth, and in constant interchange with that surface, happen to have similar chemical structures to the surface. Where do the plants we eat, for example, get their chemical structure - which in turn becomes our flesh? And what about every human who has grown from a single cell (a fertilised ovum) into billions of cells since the time of your Adam? How do all those billions of cells get their chemical composition without being made directly from dust each time? If you can get your chemical composition from your parents, then your whole argument has just fallen apart. If you were not created directly from dust or dirt, but still have the same chemical composition as dirt or dust, then clearly there are biological processes at work in your body that produce that composition without needing your own personal body to have been shaped directly out of the ground.
The alleged chemical composition of the human body is not at all a persuasive argument that the human body was created directly from the dust of the earth - unless you want to claim that you personally were so created.
It is most certainly, by any stretch of logic, not "proof".
By the way, how different is the chemical composition of the human body to the chemical composition of chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas? If they are similar to us, then you would have just as good evidence of evolution - using your methods - as creation directly from dust or dirt.
01 Aug 2014, 10:36 pm
