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]

The Big Bang theorizes that all stars began from one place, which has no evidence,

Start here.

Just another theoretical summary about the Big Bang, without any direct evidence to prove it. And a bad effort, since it is rejected by peer review as overly speculative and unscientific.

What you need to do is go ahead and give your own direct evidence for the Big Bang theory, that no one else has. Or, if you think there's direct evidence in this link, then quote it.

[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.

It's comical to me that we have a poster that will point to some religious promotional material and call claims within it 'facts',

It's obvious to me that we have posters what will misrepresent some arguments they don't want to agree with, rather than respond to the argument at hand.

The argument is that Gen 1 states something as fact, while neither the Big Bang nor human evolution is stated as fact, but only theory. And so, only Gen 1 can be debated as fact, while the theories are only speculative.

It's such a recurrent habit of misrepresentation, that it's either so ingrained that it can't be corrected, or it's just on purpose.

and then go on to complain about a scientific theory.

It's not a complaint to confirm something is only theory. The complaint is made by people who don't want something to only be theory, but fact.

They obviously don't understand how much must take place for something to become a scientific theory nor just how meaningful that is. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Germ theory.
Plate tectonics theory.
Cell theory.
General relativity.
Heliocentrism.
Atomic Theory.
Etc....

Could you imagine someone rejecting that the sun is the center of our solar system because heliocentrism is just a theory?

I can imagine someone who doesn't know (or want to know) the difference between proven theory by direct evidence, and speculative theory without directive evidence. And so, they ignorantly (or purposely) mix them together, in order to say someone is denying proven science, if they acknowledge some theories are still speculative, and not proven.

In that case, the postulators of the Big Bang theory would then be denying the earth revolves around the sun, because they confirm the Big Bang still has no direct evidence, and so remains only an unproven theory, as apposed to the proven science of heliocentrism...

Such a person deserves to be ridiculed don't you think?

Tell me about it. Or, just ignored.

Shame on you (generic you) for not understanding that which you complain about.

Don't bother with the silly cover. I don't report people, unless it's for profanity. My skin is not thin, especially when someone's argument is too easily dismissed.

And so, Gen 1 is still stated as fact, not theory alone, while the Big Bang and human evolution are still stated as theory alone, not as fact. The direct evidence still remains for a created expansive universe of stars, and people created in the image of God, while the Big Bang and human evolutionary theories have no direct evidence.

The universe remains as expansive as when first created, and people still remain completely different from all other creatures on earth, as when first created. None of these things have even been accurately addressed, much less refuted as self-evidently true.

[Difflugia]

As the title states, the proof of evidence is what Gen 1 says about the creation of the stars, and of man and woman in God's image. I've confined my arguments to what Gen 1 says with the direct evidence for it.

[...]

Postulators of the Big Bang say plainly there is no direct evidence, but only retroactive speculation from the fact of an expanding universe.

And thus the necessity of equivocation for Christian apologetics. You've redefined "direct evidence" for your biblical argument such that it's essentially meaningless, but still want to hold scientists to their own, more rigorous definition. Scientists don't claim "direct evidence" because nobody "directly" measured the event as it happened. By that definition, the same is true of your "God created."

On the other hand, if we use consistent definitions, scientists have evidence and apologists have fairy tales. Direct fairy tales, even.

Your unwillingness to accept there is no direct evidence,

That hasn't been my claim. My problem is with your double standard, making this claim a straw man. Are we playing creationist Bingo now?

My argument is justified by Gen 1 stating these things as fact

Creationists state many dubious things as fact.

When you quote someone saying something, then you won't misrepresent them.

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.

There. I haven't misrepresented you.

I'll begin to consider your challenge to mine.

There is no 'challenge' to confronting your unwillingness to believe the Big Bang has no direct evidence.

That's why straw men are so popular: the modified claim isn't as challenging as the original argument.

Once again, the difference between Gen 1 and the Big Bang/human evolutionary theories, is that Gen 1 is stated as a fact, while neither the Big Bang nor human evolution do so.

What do you think this buys you? "Confidently incorrect" isn't a compliment.

Whether it's scientific, educated, or wild imagination, if it's without direct evidence, then it's still all imaginative guesswork.

Sure. Because possible and probable are the same thing.

[RBD]

That's only if someone doesn't look at the direct evidence given for the stated fact at hand.

You have demonstrated an unwillingness to learn what evidence is as you continue to think that claims are evidence.

You've demonstrated your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence given for the claims of Gen 1.

The only claims treated as evidence here, are yours for the Big Bang and human evolution theories.

Pointing to people believing something is also not evidence for the said belief itself.

Exactly. People believing in the Big Bang and human evolution, only do so by blind belief alone without any evidence.

Believers in Gen 1 creation of the cosmos and people created in the image of God, do so by daily evidence that prove it. Which evidence no one has acknowledged, much less tried to refute.

Instead, they treat me as though I were one of the blind believers in the Big Bang and human evolution, without giving any direct evidence to prove them.

I don't trust in blind faith alone, anymore than the Author of Gen 1, who says to prove His words by His works:

Jhn 14:11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.


Which begins with His works of creation in Gen 1.

You also demonstrate an unwillingness to learn what a scientific theory is.

You continue to ignore my definitions, as well as the evidence I give, and just deny them by blind disbelieve alone.

You need to either show us that we are wrong

If the above doesn't convince you to actually address evidence and definitions given, then nothing can. No one can force anyone to be honest with an argument.

But we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not handling the word deceitfully...

I'm trying to be very specific as to why your claims are not being accepted.

Blind denial without addressing the evidence given, is poor at best, and dishonest at least.

I have even demonstrated as to why by referring to analogies with the Quran and Joseph Smith (that people believe claims for both is not evidence that the claims are true).
If you take issue with how I am arriving at my conclusions, please spell it out for me as I do for you so I can self reflect if needed.

Sure. Just address the responses I give to your claims, rather than ignoring them and just repeating your claims, as though making claims alone proves anything, even if blindly repeated again and again.

Use not vain repetitions: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

You are at war with established definitions/the English language.

Once you give any other definitions for proven scientific theory with evidence, vs unproven scientific theories without evidence, then I'll be glad to look at them. Otherwise, the common sense definition is in the terms themselves: Proven vs unproven theories...

Now, if you want to suggest that scientific theories, are only those proven by direct evidence, such as heliocentrism and universal expansion, then your war is with speculators of the Big Bang and human evolution, for calling them scientific theories.

So, you can take all your indignant complaints against treating claims as evidence, and treating them as scientific theories, to the prognosticators of the Big Bang and human evolution. I personally have no problem with anyone calling their speculations scientific theories, so long as they don't confuse them with scientific theory proven by direct evidence.

And you can then address the universal and human creation in Gen 1, that is stated as scientific fact by direct evidence, and not as unproven theory alone.

[RBD]

It looks like you've made absolutely no effort to create any kind of logical construction.

That's only if someone doesn't look at the direct evidence given for the stated fact at hand. Then of course, anything would look like no argument is given at all.

You haven't made an argument, but simply declared by your own fiat what is and isn't "direct evidence." The Bible's claim that God created the stars and "there they are" are direct evidence, but scientific data are not?

Thanks, You are the first to at least address the direct evidence given.

Of course they are direct scientific data proving the claims of Gen 1.

What are not scientific date are no direct data at all for the Big Bang and human evolution. No such data of the actual events are given, because there is none.

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

And even more so, if that oversight of the given evidence is worded carefully enough, so as to look educated, then maybe the oversight itself may be overlooked. And if enough people are also willing overlook the evidence given, who also word their response in a similarly educated fashion, then there would be a genuine scholarly consensus.

So, people that talk about scientific data sound educated, therefore what? Don't trust people that are educated?

Scientists talking about available direct data, are not scientists theorizing without direct data. The former are educated in direct data, and can be trusted by the direct data itself. The latter are educated in theorizing without data, and cannot be trusted until the direct data becomes available.

So long as you continued to confuse proven science by direct data, vs unproven speculation without direct data, then you will also confuse trusting in the provable data, vs believing in an unproven theory. Which will first require divesting yourself of the blind belief, that the Big Bang and human evolution are proven science by direct data, and not just speculative theories alone...

Direct evidence for Gen 1 can be trusted by seeing it is there. Belief in theories about the Big Bang and human evolution is only by blind faith alone, since there is no there there to see.

[RBD]

In a sense... I.e. sort of... kind of... Not in fact. And so, only if someone wants to believe it without direct evidence.

When I state, "in a sense", this has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based.

It certainly does when the argument is about being evidence based, and not just theoretical. In a sense either applies to theory only, or to an analogy for something evidence based.

When debating factual proof, in a sense is used to make the theoretical only seem factual.

Direct evidence for evolution also includes observing evolutionary changes occurring in real-time, like the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant insects, and the fossil record, which provides tangible evidence of past life forms and their evolution.

When you give evidence of transspecies human evolution from primates, then you have direct evidence of human evolution from primates. The same is for the Big Bang.

No one disputes biological evolution within a species, nor universal expansion.

Only if you want to believe it in an unproven theoretical sense, without evidence of such species in actual transition. Otherwise, factually, we only have the primate species and human beings.

The only viable reason not to accept it is because your dusty old book makes the claim that God made "Adam and Eve" in his own image.

The only viable reason to accept Gen 1 is the daily evidence at hand, where even one born blind can know humans are distinctly different from all other creatures on earth.

If anyone doesn't believe that, then let them ask any other creature about it.

Which would mean "Adam and Eve" would look nothing like they would today.

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

Jhn 1:2The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men…That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


And no rational person would ask any other creature, if we are completely different from all others on earth.

Hence, reject any later discovery which contradicts the Bible's claimed assertion. However:

Which discovery of transspecies mutation and evolution does not exist between man and primate.

1. Direct Observation of Microevolution:

Evolution in Action: We can directly observe evolution happening in populations with short lifecycles, such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or insects becoming resistant to pesticides.

Examples: Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria: Bacteria populations can rapidly evolve resistance to antibiotics, demonstrating how natural selection can favor traits that allow survival in the presence of a selective pressure (the antibiotic).

Pesticide Resistance in Insects: Similarly, insect populations can evolve resistance to pesticides, with resistant individuals surviving and reproducing more successfully than those that are susceptible.

Other Examples: Pollutants, predation, or urbanization can also be observed in various organisms.

2. The Fossil Record:

Tangible Evidence of Past Life: Fossils provide a record of past life forms, including transitional forms that show how species have changed over time.

Examples: Transitional Fossils: Fossils like Archaeopteryx, which exhibits features of both birds and reptiles, demonstrate how different groups of organisms are related.

Fossil Evidence of Evolutionary Change: The fossil record shows a progression of life forms, from simple to complex, and can provide evidence of how species have changed over geological time.

Tracks, Burrows, and Borings: Fossilized tracks, burrows, and borings can also provide evidence of past animal behavior and environments.
Gastrolites and Coprolites: Gastrolites (stony pieces found in the stomachs of ancient reptiles and fishes) and coprolites (fossilized feces) offer insights into the diets and behaviors of extinct organisms.

Lone species biological evolution in action, where they still remain within the same species. No evidence of any species mutating into another entire species apart from the original, especially not between man and ape, nor mammal and fish...

The evidence of an expanded universe created at once, and humans created in the intellectual and spiritual image of God, apart from all other creatures, remains the same and unchanged since the beginning.

No direct evidence for any contracted Big Bang event, nor any new species of creature departing from another by evolutionary mutation.

There are no 'missing links' for internal species evolution, but only as yet undiscovered pieces to an already proven puzzle.

However, there are no links to trans-evolution from one species to an entirely different one, such as primates to people. When any direct evidence of such an event is discovered, then we can talk about human evolution joining the scientifically proven ranks of biological evolution.

Until then, it's only the postulations of 'experts' trying to prove people are no different from other creatures of the earth, which is intellectually and spiritually impossible. Just ask any other creature, including any brute primate, fun porpoise, or wise elephant on earth:

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Difflugia]

Of course they are direct scientific data proving the claims of Gen 1.

In the way that you're using the phrase "direct evidence," the appearance of the stars is "direct evidence" that they exist, not that anything or anyone created them.

What are not scientific date are no direct data at all for the Big Bang and human evolution. No such data of the actual events are given, because there is none.

Maybe. Your definition of "direct evidence" may preclude the scientific data. If that's the case, though, there's also no direct evidence for gods creating anything.

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

The problem is that this statement is so wrong that it's hard to know what exactly you're wrong about. At the moment, I'm still trying to figure out your definition of "direct data," That seems to be the basis for your argument, but you also seem to be claiming that other kinds of evidence for the Big Bang and evolution are insufficient, which isn't true.

So long as you continued to confuse proven science by direct data, vs unproven speculation without direct data, then you will also confuse trusting in the provable data, vs believing in an unproven theory. Which will first require divesting yourself of the blind belief, that the Big Bang and human evolution are proven science by direct data, and not just speculative theories alone...

You're either using some private definitions for some combination of "proven," "science," "speculation," "direct data," and "theory," or else this statement is so much nonsense.

Direct evidence for Gen 1 can be trusted by seeing it is there. Belief in theories about the Big Bang and human evolution is only by blind faith alone, since there is no there there to see.

If you want to include anything in Genesis that involves God or any other supernatural beings, then you haven't established any sort of evidence for them, direct or otherwise.

[RBD]

As the title states, the proof of evidence is what Gen 1 says about the creation of the stars, and of man and woman in God's image. I've confined my arguments to what Gen 1 says with the direct evidence for it.

[...]

Postulators of the Big Bang say plainly there is no direct evidence, but only retroactive speculation from the fact of an expanding universe.

Scientists don't claim "direct evidence" because nobody "directly" measured the event as it happened.

You acknowledge along with all others, that there is no direct evidence of any universe contracted into one place, for any Big Bang event to occur. Your effort to write it off as unprovable, because it can't now be 'watched', is ignorant of how it could be proven.

The direct evidence for the Big Bang event, could be accurately measured by a reverse trajectory of current constellation travel today. Such reverse measurements from past positions compared to today, is how we know the universe is in fact expanding.

The problem for a Big Bang theory, is that there is no reverse measurement of constellations found to one place in time, for any big Bang event to take place. The reverse travel can only show an expansive universe less expanded than today, which once again only proves an expanding universe, not aany universe originating from one place of a Big Bang event.

The direct evidence is only for an original expansive universe, exactly as Gen 1 states for their creation in the beginning.

When you quote someone saying something, then you won't misrepresent them.

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.

There. I haven't misrepresented you.

There. You've quoted me.

Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 20, 2025 8:32 amYou claimed that there is "direct evidence of God's creating all the stars," but when asked what the evidence actually is, you just claimed that you don't have to because it's self-evident.

There. You've misrepresented me.

[RBD]

Of course they are direct scientific data proving the claims of Gen 1.

In the way that you're using the phrase "direct evidence," the appearance of the stars is "direct evidence" that they exist, not that anything or anyone created them.

The direct evidence is that they exist the same as in the beginning, because there is no evidence the universe began only as a hot gaseous cloud.

Since the Gen 1 manner of creation has direct evidence, then who created them in expanse all at once, can be better believed than any blind faith in a speculative theorist of a hot gaseous big bang without any evidence.

What are not scientific date are no direct data at all for the Big Bang and human evolution. No such data of the actual events are given, because there is none.

Maybe. Your definition of "direct evidence" may preclude the scientific data. If that's the case, though, there's also no direct evidence for gods creating anything.

The only definition for direct evidence, is direct evidence, which is called scientific data. The only thing precluding scientific data is no direct evidence at all. Scientific data for the Big Bang and human evolution are not precluded by no direct evidence, but are excluded.

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

The problem is that this statement is so wrong that it's hard to know what exactly you're wrong about.

If you ever know exactly what's wrong about any part of it, let me know, and I'd be glad to take a look at it. In the meantime, acknowledging there's nothing wrong with an argument you don't want to believe, is just acknowledging a blind disbelief in a right argument, for the sake of blind faith in something else proven wrong by it.

And personally, I have no problem with people blindly believing whatever they want, until they try to pass it off as educated science.

At the moment, I'm still trying to figure out your definition of "direct data," That seems to be the basis for your argument,

First 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is direct evidence for something, then you can look at what that direct evidence in.

You can also 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is no direct evidence for something, then you can work on what that 'means', when trying to believe it as scientific fact.

I.e. blind faith.

But you also seem to be claiming that other kinds of evidence for the Big Bang and evolution are insufficient, which isn't true.

Which is true, when there is no direct evidence for something, and other evidence is only for something else.

Direct evidence for an expanding universe, and for same-species biological evolution, have nothing to do with a big bang and inter-species evolution, which are only piggy-back theories without direct evidence of their own.

Direct evidence for Gen 1 can be trusted by seeing it is there. Belief in theories about the Big Bang and human evolution is only by blind faith alone, since there is no there there to see.

If you want to include anything in Genesis that involves God or any other supernatural beings, then you haven't established any sort of evidence for them, direct or otherwise.

As stated above, the argument is for Gen 1's stated fact of universal and human creation having continuous direct evidence, vs the postulated theories of a universal Big Bang and new species human evolution, that have no evidence.

Whether anyone wants to also believe Gen 1's stated fact of God being the Creator, is irrelevant to the argument.

Gen 1's creation of an expansive universe at once, and humans created in God's image, is first stated as fact, and also proven factual by direct daily evidence. A big Bang with human evolution are only stated as theories, with no direct factual evidence.

Therefore, trusting in the manner of creation in Genesis 1 is by educated observation of a stated fact, while trusting in the manner of universal creation by a big bang, and humans by a primate evolution, is only by blind faith in stated theories without factual evidence.

I never believe anything by blind faith alone, but rather by the intelligent study and confirmation of reasonable evidence, and I give Jesus Christ the honor for making me that way from the womb:

Jhn 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

I do not disavow His true light, and instead try to argue blind faith in a speculative theory, that has no factual evidence, is 'educated science'.

[Difflugia]

The direct evidence is that they exist the same as in the beginning,

We don't have that. We have evidence of how they exist now.

Since the Gen 1 manner of creation has direct evidence,

You've claimed that, but haven't provided any.

The only definition for direct evidence, is direct evidence, which is called scientific data. The only thing precluding scientific data is no direct evidence at all. Scientific data for the Big Bang and human evolution are not precluded by no direct evidence, but are excluded.

What?

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

The problem is that this statement is so wrong that it's hard to know what exactly you're wrong about.

• the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories
  • They're both theories, but neither is speculative.
• are now proven scientific fact
  • The facts are the supporting data.
• such as Hubbell's universal expansion
  • Laws are descriptions, usually mathematical, of what is happening. Theories explain how and why. Hubble's law was never Hubble's theory and relativity theory will never become relativity law. They're qualitatively different things.
• Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species
  • The data that support evolution aren't somehow bounded by definitions of species.

Since everything you said there is wrong, I'm assuming that there's some underlying misunderstanding that's affecting your overall big picture rather than you having somehow gained an independently flawed understanding of so many different things.

In the meantime, acknowledging there's nothing wrong with an argument you don't want to believe, is just acknowledging a blind disbelief in a right argument, for the sake of blind faith in something else proven wrong by it.

QFT

And personally, I have no problem with people blindly believing whatever they want, until they try to pass it off as educated science.

QFT

First 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is direct evidence for something, then you can look at what that direct evidence in.

I know what most people mean, but you've been inconsistent. I'd like you to nail it down.

You can also 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is no direct evidence for something, then you can work on what that 'means', when trying to believe it as scientific fact.

You're also inconsistent about what you mean by "scientific fact."

Direct evidence for an expanding universe, and for same-species biological evolution, have nothing to do with a big bang and inter-species evolution, which are only piggy-back theories without direct evidence of their own.

The same measurements for an expanding universe and "same-species" biological evolution also support the Big Bang and biological evolution writ large in the same way. If the evidence is "direct" in the former contexts, it's "direct" in the latter as well.

Let's start there. What makes evidence direct when it applies to an expanding universe or "same-species" biological evoluton, but not when it applies to the Big Bang or biological evolution overall?