Another case of faulty "literalization" and faulty association of science to conveniently support a faulty preaching.
The seemingly "scientific" way of explaining the dust-to-man dogma is of course not surprising. How else would a typical creationist explain it but associate it with a scientific data to make it appear as a valid and solid argument that man was made out of dust.
For an ordinary Joe, he would easily be enamored by such mixture of "scientific eloquence" such as below:
What are the scientific proof that man’s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.
If you're knowledge of science is limited, like most of us, one can be easily held captive and fall into accepting an elitist doctrine. And I take no exception on the above-quoted excerpt of Eli Soriano's blog which is just among a few good examples of how a widely-accepted scientific data in human Chemistry is taken out of context.
Obviously, the earth is generally organic -- this is basic Chemistry or Chemistry 101. Don't you know that animals and other lower life forms are also composed of the very same basic elements man is also made of? Primates for example have the same chemical composition as man yet you will read in the Bible that primates were not made out of dust?!!!
The same goes (chemical make-up) for the elephants, lions, cows and other mammals and such other animals and plants except they were not formed out of dust as you read them in the Bible. I wonder if Eli Soriano can make up another "scientific connection" why man had to be (made out of dust) only to find himself that he was made of the same banana as the animals
Hmmmm...
Further, if you're going to look at it or literally interpret the Bible, it would appear that God is unfair that he made man out of dust yet all other life forms that he created were formed out of a simple fiat like what you read in Gen1:24 "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." One can't help but ask why God did not make man in the same fashion as he did to the rest of his other creations.
Haaay, literalism...<sigh>