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...)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #189]

Evidence suggests, is never evidence proven. Another tour guide of similarity, that not arrives at 100% proof.

Scientific theories are not presented as proofs, as they remain open to modification on new evidence.

What's the 100% proof of the book of Genesis?

That's always the case with new speciation of a whole new creature, that is wholly separate from any other going before.

We are not wholely separate from the Great Apes. We have most of the same primate chromosomes.

What will never be found, is any positive skeletal or biological link between any human being on earth, to any animal on earth.

The biological links are our chromosomes.


Reptiles and birds cannot cross-breed, so archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Reptile and birds cannot cross-breed because reptiles are not birds, and birds are not reptiles

.....which confirms that Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

and they can't possibly have any common ancestor that began to uncross-breed.

The point is that they had a common reptile ancestor which evolved toward a bird.

And a bird-like reptile, that has no link to birds, is not a bird, but a reptile.

You yourself pointed out that reptiles are not birds and birds are not reptiles, so a bird-like reptile would have evolved and thus would have a link to birds. So again, Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Which includes flying fish.

Flying fish are fish. They have appendages adapted for gliding, like dolphins are mammals with appendages adapted for swimming.

No human can be an animal of any kind, because human blood and seed is not animal blood and seed, and vica versa.

Blood and seed.....blood and seed.....

If you can be repeditive, so can I:

The gorilla and the chimpanzee have entirely different blood groups. They're not the same species, but they're both primates.

The beaver and the groundhog cannot interbreed. They're not the same species, but they're both rodents.

Great Ape and human have different [though, in some cases, similar] blood and cannot interbreed. We're not the same species, but we're all primates.

The "blood and seed" argument is not holding up.


You're just repeating your statements without addressing my arguments or answering my questions.