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 #153]

People who say 'humans are animals', are rejecting basic biological separation between the blood and sperm of humans and animals. They are ignorantly repeating an ideology manufactured from a science, that it contradicts.

Beavers and wolves cannot interbreed. Does this mean that beavers are not animals, or does it mean that wolves are not animals?

Breeding divides species of animals. But blood divides humans from all animals. Humans have one blood for all humans, and all animals have one blood for animals.

It's the blood that makes all humans separate from all animals, so that humans are not animals. It's the seed that separates the breeding of humans from all animals, so that a human cannot be an animal species.

Marx helped prove evolutionary transition within a species, not of one species transitioning to another wholly different species, such as a fish to a mammal.

Here's this again, in case you forgot to read it:

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryx

This isn't Marx, nor his theory. Karl Marx never theorized primate-human evolution. That's a later theory still unproven. The same with Hubble proving universal expansion, but not a big bang, which is also a later unproven theory.

Already answered about the archaeopteryx reptile, that has a bird-like feature. Which does not make it a bird. No more than flying fish.

And that aside again: Human blood and seed make it impossible for man to have any common ancestry or present kinship with apes. That's self-explanatory. The only debate can be whether the whole new creature on earth, mankind, revolutionized from another animal, or was created apart from all animals of the earth.

New speciation, that is separate from all other past and present species, is by definition a wholly new creation. And it's definition was made to account for the new creature mankind on earth. And evolution by definition cannot account for it, because it requires a familial connection before and after.

At what point the completely new creature appears on earth, it can't be shown to have from another creature. Otherwise, it's not a whole new creature on earth, but only a variation of some creature going before.

Mankind is a whole new creature on earth, with no past ancestry by blood nor seed, because there is no present one. If A is not B, then B cannot produce A, which would be evolution. Since A is not equal to B, then A is created different.

A species can have many evolutionary 'cousins' within it, but no species can become another species of no relation.

.....but a species can become other species with relation...

Not the new species of no relation.

A species becoming species with relation to another, is called a hybrid, not a whole new species.

A completely new species appearing on earth, by definition has no past relation to any older species, nor hybrid of species. Otherwise, it's not a wholly new species, but only the same species with new characteristics.

Single species evolution and cross-species relation among animals is proven biology.

----such as humans and other primates coming from a common ancestor.

Animal-human revolution and cross animal-human relation is impossible: Humans are an entirely new creature on earth. We have our own blood and seed between us, and animals have their own between themselves. Therefore, by complete present separation with no relation, there can be no past relation.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

It's the pre-universal spot of hot gas alone, and the first stars only forming over time, that contradict Gen 1.

So your problem with the Big Bang is that it contradicts Genesis 1.

No. The problem with the Big Bang is no direct evidence of any universal gas without stars, to bang big from. The good thing about Gen 1, is that it has the ongoing evidence of a universe of stars, with no evidence against it beginning that way: As in some pre-universe of gas without stars.

It's clear that the stars weren't all created at once since we see stars in various stages of growth.

It's clear that all the first stars, are not all the present stars. Stay focused: The debate is between Gen 1 and Big Bang, which is about the beginning of the universe of stars.

Why would God create stars all at once and then deceptively make it look like they form individually through eons?

The Bible isn't written deceptively to deceive anyone. The words are plain and clear enough to study and reasonably believe. If the disbeliever is decieved by something, that the studied believer is not confused with, it's their own fault, not the Bible's:

Job 5:13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

The unproven lie, is that an expanding universe of new stars from hot gas, 'must' mean that stars began in time from an explosion of condensed hot gas in one spot.

The expanding universe is the evidence that stars are formed from gas----period.

Exactly. That's it. New stars continue to form from the hot gas, that was and is among a universe of stars.

What evidence suggests anything else?

Nothing suggests anything else, such as a past universe of gas alone without stars, that big banged into a universe of stars.

Reasonable people can speculate Gen 1, or a Big Bang, but not both. The only unreasonable people are those that say Gen 1, or the Big Bang, are impossible to believe.

But since I do choose to believe Gen 1, then I must reject a pre-universe of hot gas, that explodes into the first stars forming over time. And of course I do reject it, unless direct evidence appears that says otherwise.

Again, the observable formation of stars is evidence of how stars are formed.

Why do you "choose" to believe Genesis 1?

Because the present universe of shining stars is evidence for it, without any evidence that the universe was ever not full of shining stars.

The same for men and women being created separate from all animals on the earth, without any evidence of us evolutionizing into being wholly separate from all animals of the earth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #199]

That would be the ideological leap. Logic simply says that newly fused chromosome is of a new creature, that is not a primate. Evolution would theorize, not anymore a primate. Creation simply says not a primate at all. The thing that makes the difference between man and primates, cannot be used to prove men are primates...

The things which make us the same certainly can...

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

Thus, fused chromosome = new primate.

Chromosomes aside, human blood and seed separates humans from all animals, without any common ancestry nor present kinship.

As I've pointed out, blood and seed separate us from other primates just as they separate other primates from each other. You can't make that fact go away by ignoring it.


(For clarity----the video explains that the fusion taking place with primate chromosomes is exactly what shows that humans and other primates do have a common ancestry.)

Or, since we are talking about human chromosomes, and not primates, then the fusion taking place with human chromosomes is exactly what shows that humans are not primates. Once again, chromosomes of humans, that are not of primates, cannot make humans primates.

The Great Apes have the same chromosomes still separate which we have fused. Remember the inactive centromere we have which corresponds to chimpanzee chromosome #13?

The medical practice of blood transfusion is not the issue. The fact that humans can transfer life-giving blood to humans, and animals to animals, but not between humans and animals, means humans are not animals.

Gorillas and chimpanzees have completely different blood groups. Does that mean gorillas aren't primates, or does it mean chimpanzees aren't primates?

(They're both primates.)

(And so are we.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

The problem with the Big Bang is no direct evidence of any universal gas without stars, to bang big from. The good thing about Gen 1, is that it has the ongoing evidence of a universe of stars, with no evidence against it beginning that way: As in some pre-universe of gas without stars.

Genesis 1 says that the earth existed and brought forth vegetation before the stars were made.

What evidence is there of life-bearing planets existing before the stars they orbit?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #201]

Already answered about the archaeopteryx reptile, that has a bird-like feature. Which does not make it a bird.

The combination of reptile and bird features show Archaeopteryx to be a transitional creature.

No more than flying fish.

Flying fish don't have feathers like a bird and the teeth and tail bones of a reptile. Archaeopteryx did.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #196]

Yes, man and woman in the garden were morally righteous and sinless, before transgressing the law of God.

Were they animals before their eyes were opened and they knew good and evil (Genesis 3:22)?