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]

[Replying to RBD in post #226]

Primate-human evolution is only a theory, not proven fact.

Scientific theories are founded on observable facts, so there isn't an either-or distinction between fact and theory.

Ok. Then the big bang and primate-human evolution is not scientific theory, but only ideology looking for factual direct evidence.

The earth and moon didn't separate because a pair of chromosomes became fused.

Circular presumption based on ideological belief.

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

Sure, from a bird or reptile, not both. I'd say the evidence is reptile, since most of the characteristics are reptilian, nor fowl.

....which works perfectly with evolution's prediction of transitional creatures.

Transitional creatures within a species, is not new speciation transition from one species to an entirely new species. Which doesn't work without proof of a new creature, that once breeded with one species, and now no longer breeds with the same species.

Unless it can be proven that the Archeopteryx once breeded with birds, then it's not the new reptile species.

Evolutionary transition within a species is proven science: Archeopteryx by name, is simply an old bird. However, evolution from an old species to a completely new species, that no longer breeds with the old, is never proven. That's only the prediction of evolutionary prophets, that have never come to pass.

The declaration of new speciation by creation, is much simpler and makes more sense for a whole new creature on earth.

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.

If the factual link were found. In the meantime a bird-like reptile is a reptile.

What could be a more "factual link" than the fact that it had reptile and bird features together?

Once again, there's a difference between a species evolving with old and new characteristics, vs a whole new species that does not breed with any old species.

To prove that a new reptile evolved from an old bird, there must be proof that the new reptile breeded with any old bird. Otherwise, it's only an old bird with reptilian characteristics, or a whole new reptile species by creation.

Do you mean to say that you refuse to accept human evolution unless you can personally see it happening fast-forward?

Personally see proof that primates and humans ever had common ancestry, while now having no present kinship of blood and seed.

All the wide array of similarities never have matched to be one creature at the same time in the past, nor at present.

Wow, humans are similar to animals, and especially to apes. "Gee whiz, Pa, ain’t that somethin’! Sure is son. So, does that make us apes, Pa? Son, why don't you go ask that ape over there, see what he says...Or, you can just keep eating your ice cream."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

If we had 23 chromosome pairs with no fusions, that would indicate that there was no common ancestor. The chromosome #2 fusion is there, so the evidence of a common ancestor is there.

False. That is an evolutionary presumption of common ancestry with 24, which has no proof. There is no direct evidence of a primate with 24 fusing into a man with 23.

As I believe I've pointed out, the fusion is the evidence.

Ape can be created with 24, and man created with one fused for 23.

We don't have "one" fused. We have two fused into one. The head-to-head telomeres at the fusion point can be observed. That's the evidence that they were originally two, and that's evidence that we had an ancestor with 24 pairs.

Saying that a fused fused chromosome must be by ancestral evolution, is only by ideological belief, not proven science.

You insist that science, which has collected a body of observable evidence, meet your standard of proof while stubbornly claiming that your faith in Genesis is enough to go on.

And without scientific proof, saying that the man can be created with a fused chromosome is belief.

It's belief in a deceptive Creator, according to the presenter in the chromosome video.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #245]

And one more time, animals have different types of the blood, the same as humans, but animal blood is not human, nor human blood is animal.

Animals can also transfuse life-giving blood between themselves, as well as humans, but no animal blood and give life to any human, nor human to any animal.

The blood and life of all humans is not animal, nor vica versa. Humans are not animals with shared blood nor life.

Nor can humans breed with any animal, and so humans are not any animal species.

None of the great ape species can interbreed, so an inability to interbreed doesn't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

Great ape blood groups are not universal among great apes, so differing blood groups don't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

You repeatedly ignore those facts to no avail.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #246]

Then the earth could have developed into a life-bearing planet before the sun existed?

According to what astrophysical evidence?

You have the Bible answer. If all you accept is scientific proof, then don't believe the Bible.

The Bible does not contradict science, by saying that earth bore life without any light at all...

The Bible does contradict science if it says that vegetation existed before there were stars. Vegetation on a planet not orbiting a star has never been scientifically observed.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #251]

Scientific theories are founded on observable facts, so there isn't an either-or distinction between fact and theory.

Ok. Then the big bang and primate-human evolution is not scientific theory, but only ideology looking for factual direct evidence.

The expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background are evidence of the Big Bang, whether you like it or not.

Our chromosome 2 fusion is evidence of primate-human evolution, whether you like it or not.


The earth and moon didn't separate because a pair of chromosomes became fused.

Circular presumption based on ideological belief.

Common sense, since Earth and moon aren't built from chromosomes.

Evolutionary transition within a species is proven science: Archeopteryx by name, is simply an old bird. However, evolution from an old species to a completely new species, that no longer breeds with the old, is never proven. That's only the prediction of evolutionary prophets, that have never come to pass.

Again, you yourself have observed that birds are not reptiles and reptiles are not birds. Therefore, Archaeopteryx with its combination of bird and reptile features was a transitional creature between reptile and bird. Archaeopteryx is extinct and birds are not, indicating that birds evolved from reptiles.

To prove that a new reptile evolved from an old bird, there must be proof that the new reptile breeded with any old bird. Otherwise, it's only an old bird with reptilian characteristics

Since reptiles aren't birds and birds aren't reptiles, where would a reptile get birdlike features if not by evolving?

"Gee whiz, Pa, ain’t that somethin’! Sure is son. So, does that make us apes, Pa? Son, why don't you go ask that ape over there, see what he says...Or, you can just keep eating your ice cream."

Appeal to Ridicule----a very poor argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #250]

Humans don't match enough to be any primate.

hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

These are the characteristics which make a primate, and humans match perfectly.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #249]

If you believe that the first man was made of dust, then you should familiarize yourself with the difference between cloning and abiogenesis.

No one is saying man was cloned, but only the woman from the man.

Then how do you account for the man without abiogenesis, which has never been scientifically observed [meaning that there's no proof of it]?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

You're proposing the false dilemma of believing in a Creator OR believing in evolutionary creation, which is fallacious.

False. One rules out the other. Creation by definition is not evolutionary, nor is evolution defined by creation.

Are you presuming to dictate to the Creator how nature is to be ordered? What makes you so wise that everyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #227]

I never say the past is not possible, but only that our human blood and life now separates from that of all animals. It means we are not animal now.

We still have animal bodies now. How can you deny that?

Now that we agree with our eyes, that humans have similar physical characteristics with some animals, we can also agree we are similar in biology too. Even our blood is the same liquid color.

However, the only thing that is the same, is the flesh and bones. Not the shape, blood, seed, biology, nor genetics.

"For example, testing blood samples using human monoclonal antibodies, you would find that bonobos have exclusively type A blood; chimpanzees are predominantly A with smaller number having type O; Orangutans from Borneo have all four blood types, A, B, AB and O.[/i]"

They all have differing animal blood types, as do humans. But no human blood is animal blood, nor vica versa. We can only receive life by human blood transfusion, and animals only by animal blood.

The whole problem of arguing modern similarities, is that none of them make a positive match, so that a human is proved an animal.

Humans beings are the reason for the science of new speciation: A whole new creature on earth, separate from all animals on the earth. No shared blood nor breeding at this time at all.

For animal-human evolution, there can only be proof in the past, when skeletal shape, biological makeup, and genetics were a match for common ancestry. Proof could also include any evidence, that human and animal blood could be shared at any time in the past, present, or future.

So long as the positive 'forensic' match remains unfound between past humans and animals, then animal-human evolution only remains a speculation, not a fact. Anyone can believe in it, but no one can now say positively that it occurred. And in like manner, anyone can believe in new speciation by creation. Neither are now proven in the past, and so both can only be believed, or the objective skeptic can withhold judgment, until direct evidence is found either way.

Being a Creator believer by the Bible, I'd prophecy that the latter proof will be at His second coming to earth...And how will He prove it? Well, He could just say so in a believable way. Or, He could just begin creating new creatures on earth again.

New speciation so far has ceased with man appearing on earth. But, there's no reason to believe, that new creatures apart from all the rest can't appear again. (Other than believing the 7th day rest means no more new creation in this heaven and earth.)

[POI]

We can only receive life by human blood transfusion, and animals only by animal blood.

What you are loosely referring to is called a (xenotransfusion). Such attempts in transfusions fail for many reasons. But of course, they would fail, which is why (speciation) is very much an identified thing in the study of evolutionary biology. But your argument lends virtually nothing to the topic of (common ancestry). And we already went over a key piece of evidence with Chromosome #2 in humans.

Despite having differences, humans share a common ancestry with other animals due to several factors, such as shared genes, homologous structures, and similar developmental patterns. DNA evidence, particularly the presence of shared endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), provides strong evidence for common ancestry. Additionally, fossil records and embryological similarities further support the evolutionary relationships between humans and other animals.