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...)

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]




1. Then God said, And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, Jesus as god created Adam form earthly dust (Genesis 2:7) Then since your Jewish gods are in a plural form of "us," they said Adam will resemble them.

YOU LIED AGAIN IN YOUR RESPONSE: "Your false rendering of Gen 2 leads to a false interpretation of Gen 1: God did not create man from the dust in His image, but from the soul breathed by the Spirit of life."

Your Christian Jewish Bible says you LIED again!: Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Tell the membereship in where you get the biblical authority, and NOT using your opinions, to rewrite your serial killer Jesus godly words in Genesis?

BEGIN:


Furthermore, you've been running away from the plural form of your God by it using "us" as the verse above shows in Genesis 1:26 in my response window at the top of this post. Therefore, tell the membership where your Christianity is having TWO GODS in your 1400 square mile heaven, and then explain them!

BEGIN:





.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

.

Therefore, since Adam had a penis to procreate his Jewish god's creation, then like Adam, Jesus as God and the other God of mention in his "us" form in heaven, where these Gods have a PENIS, urinates, and shytes in resembling Adam in having to do the same!.... What?

Hence, your satirical reference to pagan anthropomorphized gods and goddesses.

RBD, The Atheists thank you for admitting that your gods in Genesis are pagan! . LOL!



.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[1DoubtingThomas]

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

where at one time, Jesus as God literally stopped the sun from moving from around the earth (Joshua 10:12-13) so the Israelites could have more day time to defeat their enemies? This notion obviously implies that the earth is either the center of the universe as it was thought in biblical times, or the sun rotated around the earth along with all visual stars.

The sun standing still does not at all have to mean it was revolving around the earth. That's an obviously biased conclusion.

^ Okay, then the obvious outcome is that your Jewish God Jesus stopped the earth from rotating instead of stopping the sun of which is NOT a biased conclusion, but only the logical conclusion left! Do you agree, and if not, then explain why the sun could stood STILL in Joshua 10:12-13?!

EXPLAIN:



.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^^

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man (Adam) called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

The godly verse above obviously did not include all the insects and fish, etc., that God had to create as well, whoops!

Each living creature includes all the rest. An author doesn't have to itemize everything, every time he writes about the same subject, just to please the fault finders.

Uh, said author is your Jewish God Jesus! He was able to list other species that he created, but lasped on mentioning insects and fish? It is not the same subject when different forms of species are mentioned, like animals, birds, fish, insects, etc. GET IT?

What a dumbfounded barbaric Bronze and Iron Age God you worship in the 21st Century Priceless ..... LOL!




.

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^^^^^

[RBD]

The evolution that is not proven, but only theorized is where an old class of species evolves into a whole new class

This would be a lot easier if we could force you to learn. Here I'll give it the old college try again. In science, things are not proven (only laws) and instead are falsifiable.

Ok then. You acknowledge primate human evolution is only an unproven theory. It remains falsifiable, in that it's also not disproven.

Then why do you state as fact, that humans are primates evolving with one another? Why do you object to the simple statement that human primate evolution is not proven science, but only remains falsifiable theory?

I never said human primate evolution is scientifically disproved, and can't ever be possibly be proven true in the future. I only object to ideologues falsely stating it as fact, as though it were already proven, and not only a continuing falsifiable theory, that is yet to be disproven.

Do you reject germ theory?
Do you reject the theory of gravity?

Are you saying germs and gravity are not proven scientific fact? That they are only falsifiable theories? There may not be germs and gravity at all, except proven in the future?

What you've done is confuse scientific theories about factual things, with falsifiable theories for unproven things. There are theories about why and how gravity is and works, which may or may not be true, but gravity is not a scientific theory in need of proof. Primate human evolution is a scientific theory still needing proof, and so is not yet a proven fact like germs and gravity.

If you think that the science about germs and gravity, is the same as the science for primate human evolution, then it's because your 'humans are animals' ideology blinds you to the difference between proven scientific fact, and unproven scientific theory.

Germs and gravity were factual existence, before being shown how they work by science. Primate human evolution remains only a theory in need of scientific proof as a fact.

as with fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds, etc...That is the origin of species by evolution, that is not proven.

See! If only I could force you to learn, you would stop making such silly mistakes like asking for proof.

See! If only I could force you to learn, you would stop making such silly mistakes like refusing proof is necessary, for any unproven scientific theory to be stated as scientific fact.

Stop saying humans are primates evolved from primates, and I'll stop asking for proof. Say humans may be primates, and I'll agree it remains a falsifiable scientific theory, that science does not yet disprove.

No one asks for proof that there are germs and gravity. Anyone can say germs and gravity are a fact.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable and to this day, has not been falsified and is therefore the best explanation available.

True. For animal speciation on earth. Not true for origin of species on earth, nor primate-human evolution.

You reject the best explanation for religious reasons, not for real reasons though.

For ideological reasons, you are ignorant of the difference between scientifically proven things that do exist, germs and gravity, vs scientific theories that may exist if proven.

Or, do you still believe the scientific theory of primate human evolution, is as scientifically factual as germs and gravity? If so, prove it.

Evolution of species is not objectionable. Origin of species by evolution is the objection.

This doesn't compute. Let me explain by using language in place of evolution.

As you should know, Latin is a dead language. However, many current languages evolved over time from Latin.
You would then have no problem (if you are consistent) with languages evolving, but would take issue with finding the exact year that Latin became what we now consider Spanish or Italian. It changed over time though. It's not like one person woke up speaking Spanish.

Exactly, but only people wake up speaking human language.

There is no issue with evolving human language, being used as an example of gradual 'speciation', that provides exact changes in time. However, there's a big issue with the gaping difference between the fact of human language evolution, that is confined solely to humans, vs theoretical human primate evolution, that finds no exact transition between humans and primates.

Like germs and gravity, human language evolution is a fact. Human primate evolution is not a proven fact, but only an unproven theory. Just because human language evolves from among humans, does not at all mean humans evolve from among primates. The premise itself disannuls the analogy, since primate have no human language to evolve with.

Does the evolution of human dress and boat making, therefore mean that humans and primates evolved together? Of course not. The process of evolution itself does not mean separately evolving things must evolve together. And as with human language, primates don't dress nor make boats.

New species, like new languages, originated from previous iterations that had changes within the population over time. Languages evolving within different populations is the best layman example for how evolution takes place that I can think of and explains nicely how new species/languages come to be.

Agreed. You're doing good in showing the process of evolution, not in proving any evolution between humans and primates. Just because the process of evolution is the same, doesn't mean there's evolution between the two.