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]

However, I don't at all accept any human evolution. I know the difference between the two, and also when human evolution is propagandized as simple biological evolution. The same for proven universal expansion being falsely taught as the unproven big bang.

By rejecting established science, you place yourself in a position of power.

By rejecting your pseudo-science ideology, I keep my power not to be indoctrinated.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

For some people, human evolution is still a viable theory in need of proof. Dittoes for a pre-universe big bang. However, it's an ideological religion for others, who are willing to believe 'human beings are animals'.

Suddenly you get to feel like your an expert when your not and that is a good feeling. I acknowledge that you deny this and fully understand why you are forced to deny this as I was once in your position.

I'm no longer interested in your spiritual/psychological problems. I just stick with the argument at hand.

Question for you:
Why do you think so many humans have Neanderthal DNA mixed in?

The same reason we share DNA with fruit flies and bananas. All life forms share some common DNA. The whole range of DNA compounds and blood of human beings, is unique to humans, that no animal has. Nor do humans have the full range of primate animal DNA and blood.

We see how ideologues skew the science they have coopted, in order to indoctrinate into their ideology: Humans and animals share some DNA, therefore humans must be animals...and fruit flies and bananas.

Ideology is the skewing of science, in order to fit personal beliefs. The eugenics movement does so with the science of biological genetics, and the 'humans are animals' movement does so with the science of biological evolution.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #141]

Ideology is the skewing of science, in order to fit personal beliefs.

Ideology is the skewing of anything in order to fit personal beliefs.

Give a scientific example of a human being formed out of dust.

Give a scientific example of a human being formed out of the rib of another human being.

There's a lot more evidence that human beings are primates.

[RBD]

But, to be more accurate, since you say people are primates, are primates people?

No.

Then it's subjective ideology, that is subject to the interpretation of the ideologue.

The only objective science is that human beings have similar physical characteristics to certain animals, like the primates. 'Looking like' primates is not being primates. Looking like conclusions is ideological, not science.

But humans, like monkeys, lemurs, apes, etc., all share a common ancestry. Do you agree?

Of course not, since humans are not animals, nor primates. remove the ideological blinders, and we see the nonsense of the question.

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed. Animals of the earth are as alien to human ancestry, as ET's. (Though speculation about human ET ancestry would have more credibility. Since we don't know what their blood and seed is, whether it be compatible with humans, or animals, or a third unique to their own)

The only thing physical thing man and beast share on earth, is our common natural flesh and mortality:

Isa 40:7The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Scripture teaches the common nature of all natural flesh on earth. People is grass is not agreeing with something like 'humans are animals', but it only pertains to shared natural flesh and mortality, not any common ancestral heritage. Being mortal with natural flesh does not make humans into animals, anymore than it makes animals into grass.

Speciation, is the science of taxonomy, that man began long ago for animals alone. The ideology of including man as a species of animal too, is a relatively new modern perversion of taxonomy. The propaganda of the ideology, posing as established science, begins with saying people are animals, and so we also need an animal's taxonomical name. Because no one demoting people into animals, will not also promote animals into people, then it proves it's ideological perversion of scientific taxonomy.

Gen 2 of the Bible confirms the legitimate science of taxonomy, by man naming all the animals, but not naming himself as an animal.

False, "speciation is the evolutionary process by which a single ancestral species diverges into two or more distinct species. It occurs when groups within a species become reproductively isolated, meaning they can no longer interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. This isolation can result from geographic separation (allopatric speciation) or, less commonly, reproductive isolation without geographic separation (sympatric speciation)."

Once again, this only confirms a species of animal can become varied within the same species: Many types of primates. As well as many types of people, but no human is a primate, nor primate a person.

Evolutionary biology only applies to evolutionary changes within a species. New speciation by evolution is all theory and no proof. There is no proof of new evolution separated from the old source. Mammals did not evolutionize from fish, nor humans from primates. Humans are not primates, and mammals are not fish. In fact, new speciation from an old source into a wholly new species, is not provable:



Another dilemma,[9] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth". That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.

Only clearly defined single species evolution is spoken of as proven here. Evolutionary transitions within the species. What's implied is new speciation transition from old to completely new, can also follow.


https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Mont ... 0of%20life
Given the extraordinary diversity of life on the planet there must be mechanisms for speciation: the formation of two species from one original species. Darwin envisioned this process as a branching event and diagrammed the process in the only illustration found in On the Origin of Species.

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed. Biologists have proposed mechanisms by which this could occur that fall into two broad categories.


And here is the failure of new speciation from an old source: The new species must be wholly separated from the old, without common blood and seed to interbreed and share blood transfusion for life. It's a whole new and separate creature from the old, which is the case with all human blood and seed uniquely separate from all animals.

Therefore, the challenge is not only to find human-primate remains, but also point in time when humans and primates had one common blood and seed.

The unresolvable dilemma therefore, is that they must irrevocably separate from the old source. They can never have the same blood and seed at any time, else they are the same creature with the same old source, as the song goes, "The new creature is the same as the old..."

New speciation is a theory, that is not provable by it's own standards. Their 'scientists' are looking for proof, that there is an old primate evolutionizing into new humans, where we do not now have common blood, seed, nor ancestry. Because once the old source is gone, with only the new remaining, then so is the old heritage by it. If the old source is ever found in the new, then it's still the old species, and not an entirely new speciation.

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed. Biologists have proposed mechanisms by which this could occur that fall into two broad categories.


It's the dilemma of a theory that cannot be proven, else it disproves itself. However, that dilemma is resolved when a new mechanism is proposed: By definition of new speciation, where the old source is not in the new creature, which has it's own unique source of blood and seed, then also by definition it is not evolutionary, but creationism:

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles;

New species evolutionary theory is in fact new species creationism. A whole new creature with a wholly separate source of life's blood and sperm to breed by, such as between humans and animals, where there can be no life-giving blood transfusion nor interbreeding. Such new speciation by definition is creation, not evolution. By stated parameters, they're not searching for an evolutionary intersection, but only for a new creation, that is wholly separate in life and breeding from all that is gone before: A wholly new species appearing at one point in time, that is separate from all the old creatures and their own unique sources: A whole new creature on earth created at one specific time, after all animals of the earth on the 6th day:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Just as with the skeletal remains, so with the biological: The missing link of new species human evolutionism is creationism. No evolutionary link will be found, because by the standard of new speciation, they cannot be found, else it's not new speciation.

New evolution of species with different characteristics for the same species, is the proven science of biological evolution. However, there is no possible way to prove the theory of new species evolution, since the defining parameters are only for new species creation: New speciationism is new creationism.

[POI]

Then it's subjective ideology, that is subject to the interpretation of the ideologue.

The only objective science is that human beings have similar physical characteristics to certain animals, like the primates. 'Looking like' primates is not being primates. Looking like conclusions is ideological, not science.

Biology does not conclude evolution is true because we "look like them". Please stop putting words into my mouth.

Of course not, since humans are not animals, nor primates. remove the ideological blinders, and we see the nonsense of the question.

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed. Animals of the earth are as alien to human ancestry, as ET's. (Though speculation about human ET ancestry would have more credibility. Since we don't know what their blood and seed is, whether it be compatible with humans, or animals, or a third unique to their own)

The only thing physical thing man and beast share on earth, is our common natural flesh and mortality:

Have you even watched the 4-minute video? It demonstrates quite a lot. Nothing you have stated above refutes anything in that video. Rather than type a text-wall, just watch the video.

Gen 2 of the Bible confirms the legitimate science of taxonomy, by man naming all the animals, but not naming himself as an animal.

That sounds swell. Too bad you cannot back it up.

Once again, this only confirms a species of animal can become varied within the same species: Many types of primates. As well as many types of people, but no human is a primate, nor primate a person.

4-minute video... Please watch it, get yourself up to speed, and then we can discuss....

************************

I noticed you omitted a lot of post 104 and also skipped post 105. Is there a reason?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #143]

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed.

I doubt that plesiadapiforms could have cross-bred with modern primates, but the evidence tells us that they developed into modern primates.
https://www.livescience.com/earliest-pr ... vered.html

Another dilemma,[9] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth".

A certain set of conditions, including rapid burial and a low level of oxygen, has to exist for fossil remains to be preserved. It isn't going to happen to every member of every species.

Once again, this only confirms a species of animal can become varied within the same species: Many types of primates. As well as many types of people, but no human is a primate, nor primate a person

"Archaeopteryx shared many anatomic characters with coelurosaurs, a group of theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs). In fact, only the identification of feathers on the first known specimens indicated that the animal was a bird. Unlike living birds, however, Archaeopteryx had well-developed teeth and a long well-developed tail similar to those of smaller dinosaurs, except that it had a row of feathers on each side. The three fingers bore claws and moved independently, unlike the fused fingers of living birds."
https://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryx

Reptiles and birds cannot cross-breed, so archaeopteryx must have evolved. Humans and other primates having a common ancestor is a piece of cake next to that.

[Difflugia]

Of course not, since humans are not animals, nor primates. remove the ideological blinders, and we see the nonsense of the question.

You call us ideologues for understanding middle school biology, but if there's some qualitative difference between a human cell and animal cell, how should one tell the difference?

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed.

And how does that manifest in biological terms? You've given us a bunch of nonsense about Blut und Eisen, but you haven't actually justified any of your claims.

How about for a starting point, human cells contain mitochondria. That means that by biological definition, humans are eukaryotes. Do you agree that humans are eukaryotes?

[RBD]

Which is base entirely upon the spiritual intelligence of all people, that no animals have. All people are entirely separate from all animals on the earth. People cannot possibly be animals, nor animals be people too, due to that complete separation between people and animals, where all people have spiritual intelligence, and no animal rationally discerns between good and evil. (Primates included)

False. See below when we begin discussing the sub-categories of 'morality.' Then the topics of a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice are all instead amoral topics, rather than moral or immoral topics?

Of course. They are moral and immoral topics. There is not one without the other. So, animals are moral? Then they can sin like people. If animals can do right, but not do unrighteousness, then your definition of morality is amoral.

Unless you now say that animals can sin, then animals are amoral creatures, that only act according to natural instinct alone. Which of course is simple and practical truth.

And so, can animals do unrighteousness and sin? If so, then your ideology is that animals are physically and morally people. They are wholly human in physical appearance and spiritual judgment of right and wrong.

If not, then once again, your ideology fails in the face of practical sense, so that you will not say animals are people, and now also redefine being morally human, in order make animals moral, but not sinful.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #147]

If not, then once again, your ideology fails in the face of practical sense, so that you will not say animals are people, and now also redefine being morally human, in order make animals moral, but not sinful.

Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were they moral but not sinful?

[POI]

Which is base entirely upon the spiritual intelligence of all people, that no animals have. All people are entirely separate from all animals on the earth. People cannot possibly be animals, nor animals be people too, due to that complete separation between people and animals, where all people have spiritual intelligence, and no animal rationally discerns between good and evil. (Primates included)

False. See below when we begin discussing the sub-categories of 'morality.' Then the topics of a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice are all instead amoral topics, rather than moral or immoral topics?

Of course. They are moral and immoral topics. There is not one without the other.

Noted. You state a) empathy, b) fairness, and d) justice are deemed "moral" topics. I have also demonstrated that other animals present with these actions of a) , b), and d).

So, animals are moral?

According to you, they are deemed 'moral', as other animals engage in what you deem 'moral' actions. Care to now (augment or pivot) accordingly?

Then they can sin like people.

What exactly is a "sin"? Meaning, you are placing the cart before the horse here, in that you first need to prove that a God actually exists before you get to render 'sin' an actual thing. Unless you disagree with the assertion that a 'sin' is deemed "a transgression against God's law's?"

If animals can do right, but not do unrighteousness, then your definition of morality is amoral.

As stated prior, 'morality' is a complex topic. But, in your case, you would have us believe that morality is not a thing if a God does not exist. Hence, can you at least prove the existence of God first? If not, why ask your interlocutor to just pre-assume that the term 'sin' is an objective reality anyways?

Unless you now say that animals can sin, then animals are amoral creatures, that only act according to natural instinct alone. Which of course is simple and practical truth.

This is your axe to grind, not mine. If a), b), and d) are deemed 'moral' topics, then we know other animals also commit 'moral' actions.

The rest of your response below is now just redundant questioning....

[RBD]

Really? That's how much bone link you have? A chromosome's worth?

Chromosome #2 is distinct to people alone.

This is a prime example of denial. This is more evidence for common ancestry.

Not with new speciation. There is no common ancestry between a whole new species and an older one, where they have no common bloodline nor seed to reproduce.

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed.


This all important parameter is necessary for primate-human evolutionists to account for the fact that human beings do not have animal blood and seed, nor do animals have ours. We can't blood transfuse nor interbreed, and have no common ancestry with animals, including primates.

The new speciation theory is that man must be a wholly new creature, separated from previous creatures on earth, because we are a wholly different creature without our own unique bloodline and reproductive sperm.

Like similar physical appearance, primates only have nearly identical Chromosome #2. Similar and nearly is not scientific proof. They only work in house shoes and horseshoes. They are similar in name and nearly the same, but a house shoe is never a horseshoe, nor a horseshoe is a house shoe. Nor a chromosome #2 person is a nearly chromosome #2 primate...

Negative. Chromosome #2 demonstrates fusion. This fusion is a prime example of speciation.

Not for new speciation of humans from primates. It would only apply to single inner speciation, where humans are the same old primate species with common ancestry, but with different characteristics.

The uneducated layman believes humans are an evolutionary primate species with the same ancestral bloodline and reproductive seed of all primates, which is biologically false.

The 'learned' human evolutionists know that man must a be wholly new 'evolutionized' creature on earth, without any remaining animal ancestral blood and seed. That of course means proving it is impossible, since any remaining primate blood and seed means it's still an old primate species, not human being.

That's where they become science ideologues, who insist on humans becoming a wholly new species by evolutionary process, which is impossible to prove, rather than a wholly new creation, after creation of all the animals of the earth.

New speciation of humans from primates, is false. Only new speciation of humans after primates can be true. The missing link between primates and humans is creation. The evolutionary gap can't be filled, because there is no evolutionary link between old species primates, and new creature man.

There's also the fact that only people have 23 chromosomes, while all primates have 24. That 24th could be the animal chromosome, that people just don't have.

It's clear now you did not watch the video or care to study the findings. Dr. Kenneth Miller explains here. Humans have 23, and not 24, because 2 chromosomes were fused.

Must be the newly created chromosome fusion, that separates humans from all animals on the earth. Maybe that new creation is what makes the blood and sperm completely different, and non interchangeable between man and beast with no common ancestry.