What is the scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans were created from dirt?

Answer 1

There is none. The story of creation is just that, a story. We evolved, that is the science.

Answer 2

The 'problem' with your question dear is that once you posit the existence of an all knowing all powerful creator - There is simply no way to 'prove' He hasn't been at work. Understand? It's a conspiracy theory. Any lack of evidence is because the conspirators were too slick to leave it. I once posed a scientific conundrum to a fundamentalist Christian on Noah's flood. You see the Earth is a globe. So if it was ever completely covered in water, there would be no place for the water to drain to. (Pretty clever eh?) The Christian smiled and said "Where do you think I think the water came from?" I said: " I think you think God put it here." He said "That is correct. Now where do you think I think it went?" lol. You see the joke? The answer is he thinks God took it away. ... And there is NOTHING 'unscientific' about that answer. Because SCIENCE does not posit the non existence of hyper-intelligent life. In fact it posits quite the reverse, that the Universe is entirely capable of evolving intelligent life. See Science is the study of cause & effect. And once we have an all knowing all powerful being as the cause, the effect can be ANYTHING. The argument may sound absurd - like God creating a fossil record just to make it look like we evolved, but it is never illogical because a God could do that. Humans already create VR games with rocks, trees, rivers & animals. We have even given the characters of these worlds some intelligence. Now it is likely one day our VR characters can be made as intelligent as humans are. Could we at that time make their world APPEAR natural? Could we create a fossil record so they would not suspect our involvement. Could we move among them without them knowing we were gods? Could we let them evolve or guide their evolution as it pleased us & without a trace? The answer is yes. And while I do not think this is the case, I absolutely hold that you cannot 'prove' it isn't. Because proof is verification of cause & their 'cause' can do anything. Nor can you escape the fact that YOU are biased against the existence of hyper-intelligent intervention. Could allegedly random mutation really be directed mutations introduced in a lab? We are already doing that. And there is absolutely NOTHING to stop technologically savvy extra terrestrials from experimenting on our ecosystem. Urban myths of alien abductions abound. You see whether it's abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang or global warming .... there is a big difference between the science of what does happen (e.g. gravity) and the science of what might have happened. You presume God was not involved as they presume He was. You can always say "The DNA doesn't look engineered" ... And they can always say "That is what God intended" They can always say "This change was too complex to happen randomly" You can always answer "We just don't understand precisely how yet" JFTR It's always refreshing to see someone knows the difference between Evolution & Abiogenesis, As well as the difference between the Logos God & the Creature God.

Answer 3

The gradual evolution of the human species is not a hypothesis. It has advanced far beyond that category to become a predominant scientific theory, fully supported by a prodigious volume of well documented scientific evidence. The fossil record speaks for itself.
.

Answer 4

While there may not be scientific evidence to support this hypothesis, there is plenty to be found in the bibical account of human creation and in forelore, oral tradition, and myth. What is especially interesting about them is that they all tell of dirt, clay, or mud being used to shape the first human/s.

Answer 5

there is no scientific evidence, its just faith, God knew what He was doing when he created the first human, Adam was the only one made from dirt. Eve was made from his flesh. if God can say something and it happens right then and there, then why would it still be around now, when it all happened then, in that moment.

Answer 6

Humans originating from "dirt" (meant as metaphor for inorganic substrates being part of the initial formation of organic substances) is actually not contradictory to evolutionary theory, if we go back far enough. Evolutionary theory, of course, makes no claim either way about a deity.

Answer 7

A scientific hypothesis requires a great deal of evidence. What you posit has zero evidence, so doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Answer 8

There is no evidence. Creation is not subject to scientific investigation. There is no way to know how creation occurred based on scientific evidence. It take faith.

Faith in God, or faith in evolution. Science is silent on the subject. Make your choice.

Answer 9

Man was not created with dust.
His body is dust, but his soul is the breath of God, the spirit.
Science can never attain any knowledge concerning spiritual realities. As for material realities, science still need time to gradually discover their immense mysteries.

Answer 10

the big bang idea shd supports the hypothesis
what come from the dust of space will returned as dust of space
this is the only scientific equation that can has equalizer

Answer 11

the fact that we are comprised completley of the exact same minerals, and elements found in dirt, the rest is water, in addition to the bible verse that says: we were made from dust (Genesis 2:7)