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...)

[marke]

[Replying to RBD in post #6]

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.

Your entire pushback is just one giant strawman argument. Regardless of whether you would actually believe it or not, you clearly do not understand what evolutionary biology even teaches. Please demonstrate that you know what evolutionary biology proposes, and then, and only then, can you wage pushback against it if you still wish. Until then, tata, I have no time for such alternative fallacious rhetoric.

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.

[marke]

RBD wrote

You misunderstand the Big Bang. Science doesn't say all stars start from the same spot! You're trying to argue with something nobody even believes!

You misunderstand Genesis 1. It doesn't say God continuously expands the universe with the addition of newly created galaxies. It says God created everything in 6 days and took Saturday off.

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.

[marke]

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. 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. There exists no one living organism which morphs from one set of characteristics completely to another. The changes, over each successive offspring, changes in extreme micro-changes, that it is only noticed if comparing from one offspring, to maybe hundreds of successive offspring later. Comparing one generation to the next is negligible to almost none.

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. Which would mean "Adam and Eve" would look nothing like they would today. Hence, reject any later discovery which contradicts the Bible's claimed assertion. However:

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.

Marke: Evidence of "micro-evolution" changes and adaptations in insects, birds, bacteria and the like cannot prove humans and apes share a common ancestor.

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.

Marke: Fossils of reptiles which had feathers do not prove those fossils evolved from reptiles that did not fly.

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.

Marke: With apologies to Darwin and other evolutionist theorists, there is nothing simple about "simple" life forms, and Darwin's idea that complex organisms evolved from simple organisms was disproven decades ago as scientists became more aware of the complexities of genetics and the genomes of all living creatures.

Tracks, Burrows, and Borings: Fossilized tracks, burrows, and borings can also provide evidence of past animal behavior and environments.

Marke: Human and dinosaur tracks preserved in the same rock formation at the same level disprove evolutionist assumptions about the ages of dinosaurs.

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.

Which is a throw away response by not addressing the argument at all, and it's daily direct evidence.

Negative. There is just so much wrong with what you state, it's hard to even know where to even begin.

[Difflugia]

Right. The same kind of pseudo-scientific consensus of man-made climate change.

Exactly. The scientific conclusion has been clear for decades, but scientifically illiterate deniers still claim otherwise.

I.e. no direct evidence, but an ideological conclusion among the majority of ideological 'scientists'.

You claimed recently that "direct evidence" and "scientific data" were the same thing. Are you back to equivocating on what
"direct evidence" means?

At best, Consensus is for guess-work en lieu of direct proof, and often is the open gap for ideology to insert itself en lieu of science.

This is literal nonsense. The collection of words is meaningless. It's like saying that bibliography is a good way to eat lunch without landing gear.

No need for a false either/or dichotomy. People are animals and people.

And animals are people and animals. The science of analytics, including grammatical analysis, is anathema to inconsistent ideology.

[...]

A = B and B = A confirms analytical mathematics. A = B, but not B = A proves inconsistent ideology.

[...]

Which proves 'people are animals' is ideological and not scientific fact. Otherwise, analytical science would be allowed for B = A, if A =B.

[...]

The ideological claim is people are animals, A = B. Changing the parameters in order to avoid inconsistency, is the mechanics of a failed argument.

And now you're just trying to play word games. Gold is metal, but not all metal is gold. People are animals, but not all animals are people. You've crossed the line where your argument fails against my actual claims, so you have to double down on the straw man.

Do you have anything else?

PETA certainly does believe animals are people too,

They don't.

They do. Now they are moving closer to the ideological endgame of legalizing animals as persons, with legal human rights.

[...]

PETA is the honest wave of the 'human are animals' movement, by taking it to the logical conclusion, that animals are therefore people.

Quote or it didn't happen.

More people through history have believed in God, and the gods, than the relatively modern movement of 'people are animals too'.

In fact, it's the godless ideologues that have dominated most of human history, as well as with the most widespread destruction.

Pick a lane.

So far 'the' factual proof is still a theory. The theoretical proof requires turning to microscopes to see what can't be seen, like the theoretical skeletal remains of a primate, that is a human being.

[...]

If genomes are as near a fail as chromosomes, then the theoretical proof still needs some factual proof.

[...]

The evidence of powerful ideology, is the numbers in the movement, as well as the will to destroy any noncompliance in it's path.

The more radical offshoots of the 'humans are animals' ideology include the Bolshevik, CHICOM , and Khmer Rouge revolutions.

As well as the insidious incremental corruption of science, education, and gvt in democratic states. Which lately has made a last leg dive into males are females, and females are males. Fortunately the whole 'human are animals' liberal movement has been stalled by rational people, that are not animals.

Hopefully it will become completely derailed for the distant future, by sticking to it's ideological foundation, and finishing it's practiced self-destruction. By all appearances, the 'human are animals' ideology remains cemented in the hearts and minds of it's dwindling practitioners.

Can you support any of this? Even the marginally coherent stuff requires you to change my arguments into something they're not, but then you just started shouting tinfoil hat stuff about the government. "You'll see! You'll all see!"

[POI]

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.

You've already lost the fight here.... Evolutionary theory is not the same as someone saying, "I have this "theory" I would like to run by you'. Please look into the difference(s), as to what the term (scientific theory) means, verses your version of it instead meaning, as an (educated guess or a hunch). Once you get this part straight, maybe we can address the rest of your baseless claim(s) from the OP?

Marke: Labeling theories, beliefs, myths, and assumptions "science" does not make those false views true or scientific.

???????????

[POI]

cannot prove humans and apes share a common ancestor.

And yet, we have direct proof of exactly this:

[POI]

[Replying to marke in post #113]

See my replies in posts 104 and 105.

[RBD]

• Our cells have a defined nucleus, mitochondria, and membrane-bound organelles: Domain Eukaryota.
• Our cells lack a cell wall, we're multicelluar, and heterotrophic: Kingdom Animalia
• As embryos, we have a notochord and pharyngeal arches: Phylum Chordata
• We're wam-blooded, have hair and mammary glands: Class Mammalia
• We have large brains relative to body weight, grasping fingers, and flat fingernails: Order Primates
• We have even larger brains than other primates, lack tails, and show complex social behavior: Family Hominidae
• We have even larger brains than other great apes, have curved spines, arched feet, and walk upright: Genus Homo
• We're the only extant species of Homo, sapiens, subspecies sapiens.

Nothing there is assumed.

Nothing there proves human beings are animals, mammals, nor primates. It only proves that the 'humans are animals' ideologues give animal names to human beings, after ideologically claiming humans are animals. Neither the claim nor the naming proves anything other than the illusion of making ideology appear 'scientific'.

It's no more valid than giving old primate bones, the name of 'man' to identify them. Giving humans animal nomenclature and naming primate skeletal remains Cheddar 'Man', does not make the humans animals, nor primates of Cheddar men. Ideology is not scientific proof, but only ideological indoctrination.

A primate's near similarity to man, does not make a primate a man. No more than making a planet a moon, which both have similar features of spherical shapes, that shine light, and have gravitational pull.

1Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

And giving a planet a moon name like Gaia Lunaris, doesn't make the planet a moon. Ideologues attempting to combine such nomenclature between humans and animals, simply because of physical similarities, is as unscientifically childish as saying the moon is also a terrestrial body, because it's similar to the earth in shape, shine, and rotation.

Talking about human primates is as unscientific and meaningless as that of terrestrial moons. It doesn't make one the other, except in the unbiblical and unscientific minds of ideological proselytes.

Cladistic and phylogenetic analyses confirm the pattern, not only between humans and primates, but between all organisms, living and extinct.

The common nature of mortality on earth is more science, that catches up to Biblical truth:

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 Bible confirms that all flesh on earth is naturally the same as grass. All flesh is grass, but all men are not grass. Other than the Biblical biology of the common nature of all flesh on earth, all other similarities between men and apes are only near misses at best, like stars and moons. There is no moon star nor human primate.

And yet, there is the one biological data, that is not given by 'humans are animals' ideologues, which permanently separates all humans from the animals: The blood.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

All men are created with the same one blood of all mankind, and is distinctly unique to men and women alone. Biology shows that the blood of people is not the blood of any animal. And no amount of physical similarities in color, shape, and liquidity can make man's blood animal blood. Humans can never be animals, because we cannot ever have and live by the same blood.

In addition to spiritual intelligence, the fact that there can be no blood transfusions between man and beast, proves that humans cannot physically be animals. The demand for skeletal remains, that could prove primates become humans, must also include proof that any animal blood becomes blood of men and women. The former is not yet found, and the latter is biologically impossible.

Added to the common sense evidence of man's separation from animals by spiritual intelligence, is the confirmed Bible science and astronomy that proves both spiritually and physically, humans cannot ever be animals. No more than planets can be moons. All nations of men and animals that dwell on the face of the earth, cannot have the same spiritual intelligence nor be made of one blood.

Which also includes human vs animal sperm:

Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

As with the blood, so with the seed: that of man is not and can never be that of beast. Nor can one fertilize the other. It is biologically impossible for and flesh and blood creature to be the same, when the blood and sperm cannot be the same. And no amount of 98% near misses of communication, habituation, DNA, genomes, and chromosomes, can ever cross the great spiritual and physical divide between man and beast on earth.

All such 'almost the same' efforts to scientifically support the ideology of 'humans are animals', always end the same way: So close yet so far away, so that spiritually and physically neither is, nor can ever be the other.

[RBD]

And finally, the closed loop ideology does not allow for humans evolving from humans. The previously existing human could not have been a person, but only a primate.

At what point does red transition to blue?

https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i ... 9414346698

When does the moon around Uranus become a planet?

When does man's blood and sperm become a primate's?

'Humans are animals' is the most unscientific ideology ever posing as science, that is based solely upon how they 'look' the same.

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Which also includes the ideological funny math, that 98% of fossil, DNA, genome, and chromosome traits is 100% proof that humans are animals. Since 98% can never mathematically be 100%, then ideology must add it's own 2% to make up the gap, that keeps them apart from one another.

The ideological process that produced human animals, is from a previously existing ideology, that people are animals...All presumptive ideology, not scientific proof.

Now you know at least some of the data and that no presumptions are necessary, so you no longer need to claim otherwise.

All the 'almost' and near-miss data in the world, will never make indoctrinal ideology into proven science.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

Biology shows that the blood of people is not the blood of any animal.

That's because humans are all one species.

"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/