3,500 years ago the book of Genesis said God created man from the dust of the earth. This was before it became chic for the Greeks to say that everything is made from the same elements (of course they had just 4 elements, but I'll cut them some slack for living a long time ago). Genesis was also before we had the periodic table of elements, with us now believing mankind to being carbon based. Some "wizard", huh?
You call this "compelling evidence?!" This is the forensic-level proof and Aristotelian Logic you proffer to support your supposition?! "Man was made from dust," and you claim that this comports with Modern Science?! Puh-leeze!
It's also fascinating to me that modern archaeology supports the sequence of animals appearing in the Genesis text (plants, fish and birds, land animals, man).
In the first Biblical account (Genesis 1:1-2:3), mankind is presented as the climax of God’s creation after He created vegetation and animals.
In the second account (Genesis 2:4), God first creates man, then plants and vegetation in the Garden of Eden, then makes animals, and finally creates woman. This does NOT comport with Modern Science!
Further, Genesis claims that the creation of the Earth preceded the formation of the Sun. This contradicts Modern Science!
And where do we believe the first human civilization was? Mesopotamia was in the Fertile Crescent in modern day Iraq -- where Genesis says the Garden of Eden was between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Very weak argument. There was no single "Cradle of Civilization," and the Indus Valley and Egypt likewise vie for the title.
You have also liberally indulged in "cherry-picking" - i.e., you've cited only those items which seem (I'm being very charitable here) to support your side.
Regards,
Genesis 2:4 is the beginning of a re-telling with more details for the creation of man. Verse 4 seems to create the setting of telling the story again with "this is the account", at a time point before water and plants (verse 5). After the water came (verse 6, presumably with plants too) we get the intimate detail of God creating man in verse 7 and early interaction with man the rest of the chapter.
Again, it's a matter of perspective as far as God creating the sun, moon, stars, and light. The first 2 verses of Genesis (Genesis 1:1-2) define the setting that the observing of creation takes place: from the surface. Think to how we believe planets are formed, first as blobs of dust and water particles. Imagine going back in time with a camera that could somehow record billions of years of video and planting it on the "surface" of Earth when Earth was just a blob of dust and water particles and everything was dark because of the dense atmosphere. Gradually, as the atmosphere thinned you'd see light before you'd see the sun (like a cloudy or rainy day when you have enough light to operate but can't see the sun). Then the water particles would start coalescing and you'd observe a clear distinction between atmosphere and water below, but probably still not be able to see the sun. Eventually the ground would appear from the surface and plants would have somewhere to grow (probably the first macro-organisms visible to our camera). Finally the atmosphere would thin out enough so that you could see the celestial bodies.
Even if it's not a definitive "proof" of creation, it ought to be enough to at least get attention and marvel and how accurate Genesis was (and the book of Job for that matter) thousands of years ago. Definitely enough there there to not completely discount it as "wizardry".
And that's not even getting into the math for natural selection being off by a factor in the thousands. If you want to talk about a belief system that requires religion... LOL