Is there a correlation between the human substance and that of of dirt?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Welcome @bodette. It is great to meet you.

@bodette

I’m an ordained minister and have read “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” which I found very interesting as well as helpful.

I’m really glad it was helpful to you.

@bodette

In “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” it talks about how human genetics are much older than a few thousand years.

That is correct.

@bodette

To my understanding the dirt on the earth is a few million years old. I have also read that protein can form in mud and after a substantial amount of time form DNA. (Please correct me if any of these facts are incorrect.)

So the dirt on earth is much older than a few million years. Protein and DNA does not easily form in mud all by itself.

@bodette

In keeping with the Genesis creation narrative which states that we were made from the dust of the earth, is it a logical and scientifically sound conclusion that there could be a correlation between the age of human genetics and the age of dirt/mud? If not, is there any Biblically compatible correlation that could be drawn?

So it is worth hearing from an exegete like @deuteroKJ on this.

We are, essentially, made up of the same “stuff” as stardust and of dirt.

@Rumraket

.
From: [PDF] The major elemental abundance differences between life, the oceans and the Sun | Semantic Scholar

As we can see, the elemental abundance of H, C, N, O, and numerous other elements essential to the human body, pretty closely matches the abundance in the sun. Also of note are Calcium, Chlorine, Potassium, Sodium etc. Afaik dying and massive main sequence stars are primarily powered by the CNO cycle, implying those elements would also be among the most abundant in their cores.

So, we are made up of the “stuff” of cosmos and of the earth. Some of argued that “from the dust” means made “mortal.” That might be true, as whether we are talking about mortality or materials, that phrase portrays us as continuous with the created world.

At the same time, we shouldn’t read to much into it:

@swamidass

I do like the poetic parallel’s between “dust of the earth” and “stardust”, but it’s hard to see that as the original meaning of Scripture. As poetic expansion now? Sure. I support that.

As for poetic expansions, I’ve often said:

Evolution is how God formed the dust into us.

I don’t think Scripture teaches evolution, but its language is certainly evocative of evolution, at least to me.