The bible says we came from dirt, science says star dust? Which is correct?

Science describes the process by which "star stuff" forms (nucleogenesis) and how it escapes from the stars. Science can explain how that material could end up in a gas cloud, how that cloud will rotate and condense to form a new star with heavier materials getting bound in planets through accretion. Science has models as to how life can start, how live evolves, and how we came to be.

The Bible asserts an event happened without explanation or mechanism, through a being whose existence is completely untestable, on a time line that has mountains of evidence stacked against it.

One can explain the whole process through several intermediate steps, and each step has a huge amount of evidence for it. The other one makes a highly implausible (if not impossible) claim with no evidence whatsoever. I cannot see how any rational being could possibly think that the latter is the better option.

Well, for the creation of the different elements by the stars, we know the exact mechanism that does this. Nuclear fusion. In fact, we can do this ourselves to a limited degree. Scientists can take hydrogen and turn it into helium and also get a lot of energy in the process. So much energy, they have a very hard time containing it. So, I completely agree with the idea that science says that the different elements on Earth were created by stars.

That is not the creation of life though. For that, you need a completely different field of science. However, there are theories about that.

One more note, some people seem to not understand the scientific defintion of theory. These people seem to believe that the common definition of theory is how science uses it. Theory in science does not mean a guess. It means it is a set of concepts used to define or explain observed events and data. In science, there is not graduating a theory to a law. A law in science is a constant verbal or mathematical relationship that expresses a fundamental principle in science. At no time were the laws of motion considered the theories of motion. The theory of gravity will never become the law of gravity. This is a basic misunderstanding that is leading to a lot of problems in understanding science. In science a theory is just as valid as a law.

Both are correct.

When we understand scripture correctly and we interpret science correctly, the two always agree.

The elements that make up our bodies had to be cooked in the interior of stars. That process is somewhat unlikely, as helium has to smash into helium, creating an unstable element which is then smashed yet again by helium to create carbon.

The star has to burn out, then its remnants have to be dispersed and a new star formed with an accretion disk surrounding it so that planets can form.

"Dirt" is just a collection of those elements formed within the star: Iron, silicon, etc.

The main difference is, the bible says we were literally formed directly from dirt and pretty much stops there.

Science knows a lot more than a simple statement like that we came from star dust and it's knowledge gained in exactly the same way in which we solve murder cases - by piecing together evidence.

Most people have no issue with murder being solved scientifically - why not origins too? Especially considering there is a heck of a lot of physical evidence that supports the pursuit of the question scientifically.

Actually, the bible doesn't say we "came from" dirt -- it says a magical god took dirt and formed the first human, intentionally, making dirt into living human beings.

There's no evidence of the magical god, any intention, or that the first human being was formed from dirt. What the evidence does show is that human beings are the result of some 3.5 billion years of evolution from early simple life forms.

It's important to get your claims correct before they can be discussed.

Oh, and since the science explanation is based on evidence and the bible myth is not, science is by far the most plausible.

Peace.

First of all, the Bible has it wrong. The human body contains ~60% water by weight, so it would be mud, not dirt. Secondly, it would be next to impossible to scoop up a handful of dirt anywhere in the world that contained all the elements in the proper proportions. Lastly, the human body does not contain the fauna and flora that typically resides in dirt. We are, in fact, star dust.

There's no contradiction. The earth was formed from interstellar material (star dust), so dirt is just an intemediate step between star dust and us.

Does science say how the star dust turned into living cells?

i assume some scientists could say that, nevertheless it relatively is a clean one on me. some say existence originated from clay. They call it the clay theory of abiogenesis. A hyperlink is under. The final time I heard the clay theory of existence became in genesis, whilst the Bible says God made guy from clay, as you factor out!

They both mean the exact same thing most of our bodies comprise of the elements found in the earth. The earth came from stardust so both can be correct.