There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

[RBD]

Normally it's us believers in creation of the universe and man by God, that have to answer to unbelievers. But what about the believers in a universe and man made without God. Shouldn't they also have to answer to us unbelievers? Yes, of course, especially since Gen 1 is stated as fact, while the Big Bang and human evolution are not stated as fact, but only theory.

That fact alone alone proves any universe and man made without God, is not a factual argument. Where no fact is claimed, there is no fact to be argued. Only where fact is claimed, can there be any argument of fact.

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another, God creating men and women in His own image: The universe of stars are self-evidently set apart from one another, and are never in the same place at any time. And, all men and women are self-evidently set apart from all animals, and are never the same creature at any time.

In the theoretical argument of the Big Bang and human evolution, there is no direct evidence of all the stars ever being in the same place at their beginning, nor of any man or woman ever being a male or female ape from our beginning. There is no evidence of a Big Bang starting place, nor of an ape-man or woman.

Gen 1 states as fact, that in their beginning God creates all the stars, as lights of an expansive universe turned on all at the same time. This is daily seen in the universe. While, the Big Bang is stated as a theory alone, that all the stars began as an explosion of light from one place. This was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

Gen 1 also states as fact, that in our own beginning God creates all men and women in His own image, as persons uniquely different from all animals. While the human evolution theory, states that all persons began as a birth of man from ape. That was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

There's more in-depth clarification to follow, if anyone wants to take a look. But, the argument is as self-explanatory, as it is self-evident. (Unless of course anyone can show any error in the argument, whether with the explanation and/or the facts and theories as stated...)

[RBD]

You mean cheddar and Kennewick primate. Who says they have to be named Cheddar and Kennewick man? That's an unscientific necessity. Objective science would simply call them what they are: Cheddar and Kennewick remains, that are mostly primate, but also with some distant similarity to human remains. So long as there remains no proof of a human-primate skeleton, then the presumption in naming them 'man', and that they must lead to human beings, is ideological determination, not objective science.

Scientists can confidently determine that Cheddar Man was a human, and not a primate, through a combination of skeletal analysis and DNA analysis:

If so, then human remains are found, not primate. Cheddar man is a man, not a Cheddar Chimp.

His discovery is significant because it provides valuable insights into the appearance and genetic history of early inhabitants of Britain.

Hence, your claim that humans are no older than 6K years, is patently false.

Correct, if the remains are human, then it's not a matter of evolution, as I thought you were arguing, but rather of dating. It's not Gen 1 that is being challenged, but time between between Gen 1 and Abraham's birth in 2166.

However, the first point remains: Naming any prehuman primate 'man', such as australopithecines man, is ideological, not scientific. Without proof of primates becoming man, then they are simply early primates with similar characteristics to man. Australopithecines primate is more accurate, or simple 'remains' to be completely objective.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #150]

Must be the newly created chromosome fusion, that separates humans from all animals on the earth. Maybe that new creation is what makes the blood and sperm completely different, and non interchangeable between man and beast with no common ancestry.

Since the fused chromosomes are primate chromosomes, the "newly created chromosome fusion" created a new primate.

(For clarity----the video explains that the fusion taking place with primate chromosomes is exactly what shows that humans and other primates do have a common ancestry.)

Here's this again, in case you forgot to read it:

"Many animals do have different blood types and can even donate blood or receive blood transfusions, just like humans. And just like humans, animal blood types are determined by the presence or absence of different antigens on the surface of their red blood cells. However, their blood type systems vary by species and differ from human blood types."
https://www.lifeshare.org/do-animals-have-blood-types/

[RBD]

Every single species alive is a "transitional species" in a sense. If you were to go to the future, and unearth homo sapien fossils, and later primates you could call that a "transitional fossil" because it shows transitional features linking these groups.

Of course. This is simple biological evolution within a single species, called inner speciation. It's not new speciation from one old species to a whole new and separate species. That is what has never been proved, nor indeed can possibly be proved.

If any of the old species remains in any creature, then by definition, it is not an example of a new creature by new speciation. It is only an example of a new creature completely different from any old species going before.

Regardless of whether you would actually believe it or not, you clearly do not understand what evolutionary biology even teaches.

See above. Your illustration is accurate enough for transitional evolutionary change, within a species. However, if anyone believes inner species biological evolution is new species evolution, then they don't know the necessary difference, especially if applied to primate-human evolutionary theory.

The common error of wrongly taught human evolutionary theory, is that humans are primates in transition. This is false, because it can't possibly be true: Humans cannot be primates nor have common ancestry, because the life's blood and reproductive seed of humans is not animal . Humans and animals do not have the same blood by which we live, and seed by which we produce.

People who say 'humans are animals', are rejecting basic biological separation between the blood and sperm of humans and animals. They are ignorantly repeating an ideology manufactured from a science, that it contradicts.

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed.

New speciation experts therefore know that proof must be found for human beings evolutionizing from primates in another way than by transition. They know it's not possible to 'transition' from one old species to a completely new and separate creature, that has no present common blood and breeding, and therefore no possible common ancestry.

The inherent conundrum of new speciation from one creature to a wholly new and separate creature, is that by definition it can never be proven. If any animal blood and seed is found in any creature at any time, then it can't be human, but only an old animal species.

Marke: Darwin was right. The fossil record is astoundingly lacking in transitional fossils to support evolutionist theories of transitions between millions of species, especially between plants and animals.

This is false. Marx helped prove evolutionary transition within a species, not of one species transitioning to another wholly different species, such as a fish to a mammal. A species can have many evolutionary 'cousins' within it, but no species can become another species of no relation.

The trans-speciation of plants to animals is therefore false by definition, and of course has no biological proof. What is true, is the fact that all natural things on earth are made of the same naturally mortal compounds, that live, age, die and deteriorate back to the dust of the earth:

Isa 40:6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

The Scripture shows that all flesh is naturally mortal, whether fish, bird, animal, or human. "People is grass" only refers to the common natural mortality of all flesh, not that people are grass, and grass is people.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

All flesh is the same mortal flesh, but all bodies of flesh are not the same, nor can they transition from one to the other: Beasts are beasts with natural flesh. Fishes are fishes, birds are birds, and people are people.

Biology confirms that all flesh of the earth, including grass, is made of the same naturally mortal building blocks, that are shared to some degree or another. But each body of flesh is unique to it's own, whose building blocks are not 100% the same as another. A man is not a beast, is not a fish, is not a bird, though all share the same natural and mortal flesh. Neither does a fish become a bird become a beast become a man...

That's ideological confusion without proof, and contradicts the biological science, that it ignorantly pretends to represent.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #153]

People who say 'humans are animals', are rejecting basic biological separation between the blood and sperm of humans and animals. They are ignorantly repeating an ideology manufactured from a science, that it contradicts.

Beavers and wolves cannot interbreed. Does this mean that beavers are not animals, or does it mean that wolves are not animals?

Marx helped prove evolutionary transition within a species, not of one species transitioning to another wholly different species, such as a fish to a mammal.

Here's this again, in case you forgot to read it:

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryx

A species can have many evolutionary 'cousins' within it, but no species can become another species of no relation.

.....but a species can become other species with relation----such as humans and other primates coming from a common ancestor.

[RBD]

You misunderstand the Big Bang. Science doesn't say all stars start from the same spot!

True. They only develop over time after the Big Bang.

What is supposed to start at the same spot, is a pre-universe of hot gas alone without any shining stars. They do not form in time until after the big blast of hot gas.

It's the pre-universal spot of hot gas alone, and the first stars only forming over time, that contradict Gen 1. There is no time in the present world, that had no stars shining. And all the stars were created at once, as turning on all the lights at the same time.

You're trying to argue with something nobody even believes!

You are trying to argue against what no one says. At least not me. Even as there was never a pre-universe of hot gas alone, there also has never been a universe of stars all shining in the same spot.

However, if the entire expanse of stars were seen from such a distance, that it looks like one bright and shining light, then all the stars could relatively be shining from the same spot. The same as all people of the earth appearing to be living in the same spot, as seen from a great distance away:

Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

(Not as seen from Mt Olympus...)

You misunderstand Genesis 1. It doesn't say God continuously expands the universe with the addition of newly created galaxies.

Of course not. I don't misunderstand what's not there. What an expanding universe proves, is that some time after all the first were created at one, new stars began to form in an expanding universe. Nothing in Gen 1 says the universe of stars remained static in space and numbers.

The unproven lie, is that an expanding universe of new stars from hot gas, 'must' mean that stars began in time from an explosion of condensed hot gas in one spot. An expanding universe of newly formed stars only proves that the universe was smaller and less innumerable at creation, than at present.

It says God created everything in 6 days and took Saturday off.

Which includes, God creating all stars shining at once, in an expansive universe created in a moment to twinkle in His eyes.

Marke: The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Science must remain silent on the origin of the universe because science deals with observable facts, not theories.

Exactly. Objective science and skepticism has no right to dismiss something unobservable out of hand. However, if the observable things of a Book have direct evidence without error, then that can lead to an intelligent reason to believe the unobservable, as well as the observable.

An expansive and expanding universe does not contradict a universe of stars begun at once. Only pre-universe of hot gas alone without shining stars, would contradict Gen 1. But of course, there's no direct evidence to prove that, but only speculation bordering on personal ideology.

Reasonable people can speculate Gen 1, or a Big Bang, but not both. The only unreasonable people are those that say Gen 1, or the Big Bang, are impossible to believe.

But since I do choose to believe Gen 1, then I must reject a pre-universe of hot gas, that explodes into the first stars forming over time. And of course I do reject it, unless direct evidence appears that says otherwise.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

It's the pre-universal spot of hot gas alone, and the first stars only forming over time, that contradict Gen 1.

So your problem with the Big Bang is that it contradicts Genesis 1.

It's clear that the stars weren't all created at once since we see stars in various stages of growth.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/to ... -formation

Why would God create stars all at once and then deceptively make it look like they form individually through eons?

The unproven lie, is that an expanding universe of new stars from hot gas, 'must' mean that stars began in time from an explosion of condensed hot gas in one spot.

The expanding universe is the evidence that stars are formed from gas----period.

What evidence suggests anything else?

Reasonable people can speculate Gen 1, or a Big Bang, but not both. The only unreasonable people are those that say Gen 1, or the Big Bang, are impossible to believe.

But since I do choose to believe Gen 1, then I must reject a pre-universe of hot gas, that explodes into the first stars forming over time. And of course I do reject it, unless direct evidence appears that says otherwise.

Again, the observable formation of stars is evidence of how stars are formed.

Why do you "choose" to believe Genesis 1?

[POI]

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed.

Since you acknowledge that ape aren't humans, and humans aren't apes, and since you likely also acknowledge that a human and an ape cannot produce offspring, then please explain the 4-minute video?

Also, here is a basic definition of common ancestry:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/glossary ... -ancestor/

common ancestor - Ancestral organism shared by two or more descendent lineages — in other words, an ancestor that they have in common. For example, the common ancestors of two biological siblings include their parents and grandparents; the common ancestors of a coyote and a wolf include the first canine and the first mammal.

The 'learned' human evolutionists know that man must a be wholly new 'evolutionized' creature on earth, without any remaining animal ancestral blood and seed. That of course means proving it is impossible, since any remaining primate blood and seed means it's still an old primate species, not human being.

That's where they become science ideologues, who insist on humans becoming a wholly new species by evolutionary process, which is impossible to prove, rather than a wholly new creation, after creation of all the animals of the earth.

New speciation of humans from primates, is false. Only new speciation of humans after primates can be true. The missing link between primates and humans is creation. The evolutionary gap can't be filled, because there is no evolutionary link between old species primates, and new creature man.

'Science' states homo sapiens share 98+% DNA with the great apes. Heck, 'science' even states humans share 50% DNA with a sponge.

Must be the newly created chromosome fusion, that separates humans from all animals on the earth. Maybe that new creation is what makes the blood and sperm completely different, and non interchangeable between man and beast with no common ancestry.

Human chromosome 2 provides strong evidence for evolution, due to its unique structure resulting from the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that are separate in other primates. This fusion event is a key difference between the human and great ape karyotypes, supporting the idea of a shared common ancestor.

Chromosome 2 in humans is believed to have formed from the head-to-head fusion of two smaller chromosomes that remain separate in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Centromere Remnants in human chromosome 2 contains a remnant of a second, inactive centromere in the middle, which is where the fusion likely occurred.

Telomere sequences, normally found at the ends of chromosomes, are also present in the middle of chromosome 2, further indicating a fusion site.

Karyotype Comparison: The human karyotype (chromosome number and appearance) differs from that of great apes due to this fusion event, where humans have 46 chromosomes and the great apes have 48.

Evolutionary Significance: The fusion of these two chromosomes likely occurred after the lineage leading to humans diverged from the common ancestor of humans and great apes. This event is a significant difference between humans and other apes, and the evidence strongly suggests it happened through a specific fusion event rather than other mechanisms like chromosome duplication or deletion.

Not a Barrier to Reproduction: While the fusion event likely occurred once, it did not present a significant barrier to reproduction. The fusion is similar to a Robertsonian translocation, which can occur in humans without preventing reproduction

[POI]

You mean cheddar and Kennewick primate. Who says they have to be named Cheddar and Kennewick man? That's an unscientific necessity. Objective science would simply call them what they are: Cheddar and Kennewick remains, that are mostly primate, but also with some distant similarity to human remains. So long as there remains no proof of a human-primate skeleton, then the presumption in naming them 'man', and that they must lead to human beings, is ideological determination, not objective science.

Scientists can confidently determine that Cheddar Man was a human, and not a primate, through a combination of skeletal analysis and DNA analysis:

If so, then human remains are found, not primate. Cheddar man is a man, not a Cheddar Chimp.

I've already explained prior. In post 157 and prior.

Correct, if the remains are human, then it's not a matter of evolution, as I thought you were arguing, but rather of dating. It's not Gen 1 that is being challenged, but time between between Gen 1 and Abraham's birth in 2166.

However, the first point remains: Naming any prehuman primate 'man', such as australopithecines man, is ideological, not scientific. Without proof of primates becoming man, then they are simply early primates with similar characteristics to man. Australopithecines primate is more accurate, or simple 'remains' to be completely objective.

You claimed humans started ~6K years ago. This statement has been debunked.

And in my response directly above (post 157), I explained the significance of chromosome #2 in homo sapiens.