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...)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #218]

You're just making the same statements over and over and trying to back them up with Bible verses.

The argument of humans not being an animal species, is only confirming the determination of species by breeding. Humans can only then be called a 'species' as an empty academic exercise, but cannot be called an animal species.

Why not, when humans breed the same way other species do?


why were we created with a fused chromosome pair which makes us look like we share ancestry with the great apes?

First, a fused chromosome pair means were are not primates. Only the false assumption of evolution for all things, looks for ancestry in something, that proves we have no present family relation. A created new creature of 23 chromosomes, not 24, needs not search for a mythical ancestry that has no evidence.

We have 23 chromosome pairs because two of our chromosomes fused. Otherwise, we would have 24 like the Great Apes.

If we had 23 chromosome pairs with no fusions, that would indicate that there was no common ancestor. The chromosome #2 fusion is there, so the evidence of a common ancestor is there.

And once again, by speaking of a Creator, you separate yourself from the evolutionist and his non-creating designer. But then, being a committed believer in evolution alone, you can't even apply 'creation' to the argument of a Creator.

You're proposing the false dilemma of believing in a Creator OR believing in evolutionary creation, which is fallacious.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #220]

The present universe of stars and gas forming new stars, is sufficient evidence of the universe of stars beginning with gas to form new stars. There is no evidence that the universe of stars, was ever without gas for new stars.

And there is no evidence that there ever was a universe of gas, without stars already formed.

The former has direct evidence, without contradiction, and the latter has no evidence at all.

1. An early, expanding universe of gas and dust collected by gravity into galaxies comprised of the first stars

2. A planet existing and bringing forth vegetation before there were any stars (Genesis 1:12)

The former has direct evidence, without contradiction, and the latter has no evidence at all.

The unscientific argument was against cloning, in order to reject the first Book on cloning. It's not faith-based, but literary research. Your faith issues are irrelevant to the argument.

My faith issues? You're the one quoting Genesis in lieu of presenting scientific evidence.

If you believe that the first man was made of dust, then you should familiarize yourself with the difference between cloning and abiogenesis.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #183]

You acknowledge humans all have one and the same blood, that is not animal blood. Humans therefore cannot be an animal species.

Humans do not all have one and the same blood type.

True. Human blood is of many types, and animal blood of differing types, but all human blood is separate from animal blood. Humans are not animals.

Distinguishing just how close the blood groups of primates are to humans depends on how closely you look.

No matter how close, it's still to far away to match. The surface, motional, and internal similarities of the earth and moon, will never make the earth a moon.

All the scientific similarities between the human family and animal kingdom, of skeletons, behaviors, DNA, chromosomes, and blood, are all only similarities, like that between earth and moon. And like earth and moon, no human and animal ever match to make one the other.

The science of similarities is interesting, but if ever taught as a match in any way, then it becomes corrupted by ideological conclusions.

Out of all the interesting science tours of similarities between man and beast, none of them have stated one single match between us. If there is ever a simple match between man and beast, then it can be trumpeted in one statement, with no need for the tour of similarities alone.

The gorilla and the chimpanzee have entirely different blood groups. They're not the same species, but they're both primates.

And both are animals with animal blood, that is not human. The one blood of many types shared by all people, is not the one blood with types shared by all animals. Humans are not animals.

And because of the seed of man separated from all animals, no human can be an animal species.

Great Ape and human have different [though, in some cases, similar] blood and cannot interbreed.

Exactly, more sicence of similiarities without a match.

We're not the same species,

Man does not breed with any animal species. Man is not an animal species.

but we're all primates.

Ideological statement corrupting the science of similarities, that never match.

The "blood and seed" argument is not holding up.

Sidestepping to a discussion on 'types', and then some more 'similarity science', doesn't affect the proof of the simple argument.

None of the blood of man is any blood of animals, and vica versa. Man is not beast, and vica versa. None of the seed of man is any seed of an animal. Man is not an animal species.

The science of similarities does not produce a match at any time between any human and animal.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #184]

Dismissing a false reading, that would make the Bible mystical, is not dismissing the Bible. It defends the literal reading in the process.

Then you assert that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece if fruit is literally why we all wear clothes?

Eating the fruit, not just a piece. And a fruit commanded by the LORD not to eat. And nothing says they would have remained sinless and naked, once having children in the garden, and children's children on the earth. It was the man and woman that first tried to clothe themselves. The LORD just did a better job of it. (He cares for all people, whether good or bad.)

And, the argument is about contradiction and error in the Bible, not whether anyone agrees with it or not.

How did the snake know good from evil when the first humans didn't? Snakes are animals.

Ha! Now this is an excellent observation. Finally a challenge that makes perfect sense!

The talking serpent with knowledge, did not become the present animal snake, until after they transgressed the LORD.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


When speaking with Adam and Eve, he was the fallen angelic being Lucifer, not an animal. The Bible does not say what he looked like as that old serpent, but the physical creature was not yet an animal on his belly, biting with venom, and swallowing frogs.

A very excellent question, that I hadn't thought of, nor needed to answer before. This is why I like such good challenges, that don't come often enough. Thanks.

[RBD]

There's only one direct proven evidence about humans and primates: Humans cannot be a animal species, since human blood and seed is not animal.

Anyone that accepts established science understands that human blood and seed is in fact, 'animal' (a human animal, that is a primate, Mammalia and Eukaryota).

False. No human blood is animal blood, and vica versa.

How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?

Only if humans breed with primates, then primates are human beings, not animals.

No human breeds with any animal species, and so no human is an animal species. Neither is any primate an animal, that breeds with humans. In that case, human-primate breeds are members of the human family, not the animal kingdom. Like half-breeds among the American Indians. They are human beings, not animals.

When humans and primates breed together, then humans are primates, and primates are humans, not animals.

Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It confirms that humans are primates
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/h ... e-primates

The sciences of similarities are interesting enough, but never give a match between any human and animal. When anyone has an animal-human match, they can quote it, without all the similarities tours. As when humans and primates breed, to produce human primate breeds of human beings.

(I don't think Planet of the Apes ever tried to suggest that...)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #189]

Evidence suggests, is never evidence proven. Another tour guide of similarity, that not arrives at 100% proof.

Scientific theories are not presented as proofs, as they remain open to modification on new evidence.

Exactly. Primate-human evolution is only a theory, not proven fact. And the factual similarities between humans and any animal, is not factual proof of any human-animal match.

An honest primate-human evolutionist still awaits the discovered fact, when humans are proven to be primates, and/or have common ancestry. Until then, anyone saying 'humans are primates', is a premature ideologue, that separates themselves from the honest primate-human evolutionists still waiting for proof.

What's the 100% proof of the book of Genesis?

I never state that all the Bible is an established fact, because not all is proven by known fact. I am not a Bible ideologue, but a reasonable believer in the whole Book.

There are reasonable believers in the whole theory of primate-human evolution, still waiting for the facts, that establish it as true.

The ideologues are those saying humans are animals, with common primate ancestry, and those saying the whole Bible is proven fact...

That's always the case with new speciation of a whole new creature, that is wholly separate from any other going before.

We are not wholly separate from the Great Apes. We have most of the same primate chromosomes.

We are wholly separate by blood and seed, from any animal on earth. That makes a whole separation between humans and animals, and their species.

We are not wholly separated without anyphysical similarities at all. But the science showing similarities alone, is not the science proving a match.

The earth and moon have many physical similarities, but they are not a match. The earth and moon haver similar surface and internal characteristics, the same as humans and primates. The earth and mooon have similar shapes as humans and primates. The earth and moon spin and rotate around similar bodies, the same as humans and primates move and walk similarly. The earth and moon both give light, the same for humans and primates seeing light. The earth is not the moon, and the human is not a primate.

What will never be found, is any positive skeletal or biological link between any human being on earth, to any animal on earth.

The biological links are our chromosomes.

23 does not equal 24. Close, but as far away as the earth being the moon.

Reptiles and birds cannot cross-breed, so archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Reptile and birds cannot cross-breed because reptiles are not birds, and birds are not reptiles

.....which confirms that Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Sure, from a bird or reptile, not both. I'd say the evidence is reptile, since most of the characteristics are reptilian, nor fowl.

New speciation of new creatures that do not interbreed with others, is only theorized to be by evolution. Whereas creation is simpler and easier to believe. And only evolutionary ideologues would reject creation as any alternative, not honest primate-human evolutionists, that do not rule out creation.

And common sense says that a creature cannot interbreed itself, into a new creature it cannot interbreed with. There must come one exact point in time, where the whole new creature appears apart from the other. Evolution cannot find it, but the Creator says He can do it.

and they can't possibly have any common ancestor that began to uncross-breed.

The point is that they had a common reptile ancestor which evolved toward a bird.

The point is that similarities toward, is still not the fact of an arrived match.

And a bird-like reptile, that has no link to birds, is not a bird, but a reptile.

You yourself pointed out that reptiles are not birds and birds are not reptiles, so a bird-like reptile would have evolved and thus would have a link to birds.

If the factual link were found. In the meantime a bird-like reptile is a reptile.

When the factual match is found between that bird-like reptile and a bird, then it's a reptilian bird. Until then, it remains a bird-like reptile. The same as a bird-like fish remains a fish.

You're just repeating your statements without addressing my arguments or answering my questions.

You're just sidestepping the simple match of all humans, that makes us separate from what matches all animals together: The blood. Instead, you continue with the similarities theories, that never match humans with animals.

The simplicity of the present blood separation of humans and animals, outweighs all the superficial similarities. It does not deny them, but simply proves they cannot be a match.

Lev 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

The blood is the life of the creature, that wholly separates one creature from the life of another. Human blood and life is not animal blood and life.

The simplicity of it forbids any statement, that human life is animal life at present. The only search for human and animal life being the same, must be in the past. Only common ancestry can be theorized, not present kinship. The search can only be for a time in the past, when human and any animal blood and life were ever matched the same.

Additionally, if any proof is found that human and animal blood and life can become a match, or can be made a match, then that is only for a future, where humans are animals are the same. But not at present.

[RBD]

[

Human blood and seed is not animal, nor has ever been animal, therefore, humans cannot be classified as any animal species, nor have any common past ancestry nor present kinship.

You begin with the assumption that human blood and seed have not "ever been animal", so your argument is circular.

False. I never say the past is not possible, but only that our human blood and life now separates from that of all animals. It means we are not animal now.

If there ever comes proof of humans and animals sharing the same life's blood, then so be it. Until then, the blood life of humans and animals are wholly separate, with not evidence of ever being the same.

The parameters of new speciation, where there is no common ancestry nor present sharing of life's blood and interbreeding, has been made specifically to account for human beings on an earth full of animals, but are not any animal.

It's been pointed out repeatedly through beavers/groundhogs [rodents] and gorillas/chimpanzees [primates] that species can have different blood and no interbreeding and still fall into the same classification. That's how humans can be primates,

And the repeated response is that animal species not interbreeding with different blood-types, are still animals, not human beings that cannot interbreed nor have the same blood of any animal.

Human blood has different blood types, and animal blood has different types, but human and animal blood is never the same type.

[RBD]

If you agree a), b), and d) are considered acts of morality, and not just acts of instinct, then you must logically also admit that such said animals commit moral acts.

That's the point. You choose to call similar acts of instinct, makes animals moral. Animals are not moral beings. They cannot choose between doing good and evil. Animals are not righteous nor unrighteous.

Those who say humans are animals, are not willing to also say animals are human. Likewise, those who say animals can be moral, are not willing to say animals can be immoral. The inconsistency by personal choice, proves it's an ideology, not scientific fact.

If we agree to the classical definition for the word 'sin' -- (listed below), then this essentially means any act which displeases god is a 'sin'. Well, without demonstrating a god or god(s), for which one can displease, you are placing the cart before the horse.

If you want to separate morality and immorality from righteousness and sin, that still does not separate morality from immorality.

You're the one making animals moral, therefore you must also be the one making animals immoral. Otherwise, your just arguing an animal morality as being amoral. And the confused argument is only to try to make humans and animals the same, by behavioral morality, but not immorality.

Your entire motive here is to try and prove the existence of a god.

Quote me where this is about proving God is. It's only proving Gen 1 has more direct evidence, than primate-human evolution and the big bang theories.

You leave God out of it, and stick to the arguments at hand, and I won't have to get you back on track.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #223]

None of the blood of man is any blood of animals, and vica versa. Man is not beast, and vica versa. None of the seed of man is any seed of an animal. Man is not an animal species.

The science of similarities does not produce a match at any time between any human and animal.

Gorillas don't match chimpanzees enough to be chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees don't match orangutans enough to be orangutans.

Orangutans don't match humans enough to be humans.

We all match enough to be primates.

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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #226]

Primate-human evolution is only a theory, not proven fact.

Scientific theories are founded on observable facts, so there isn't an either-or distinction between fact and theory.

I am not a Bible ideologue, but a reasonable believer in the whole Book.

I am not an evolution ideologue, but a reasonable believer in the evidence of evolution.

We are not wholly separated without anyphysical similarities at all. But the science showing similarities alone, is not the science proving a match.

The science shows that the same chromosomes which fused in us remain separate in the great apes. They have them, we have them.

The earth and moon have many physical similarities, but they are not a match. The earth and moon haver similar surface and internal characteristics, the same as humans and primates. The earth and mooon have similar shapes as humans and primates. The earth and moon spin and rotate around similar bodies, the same as humans and primates move and walk similarly. The earth and moon both give light, the same for humans and primates seeing light. The earth is not the moon, and the human is not a primate.

Weak analogy. The earth and moon didn't separate because a pair of chromosomes became fused.

23 does not equal 24. Close, but as far away as the earth being the moon.

23 doesn't have to equal 24 when the 23 have one pair fused. They're still the same chromosomes.


.....which confirms that Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Sure, from a bird or reptile, not both. I'd say the evidence is reptile, since most of the characteristics are reptilian, nor fowl.

....which works perfectly with evolution's prediction of transitional creatures.


You yourself pointed out that reptiles are not birds and birds are not reptiles, so a bird-like reptile would have evolved and thus would have a link to birds.

If the factual link were found. In the meantime a bird-like reptile is a reptile.

What could be a more "factual link" than the fact that it had reptile and bird features together? You can't pick one and ignore the other just because you don't like the idea of it evolving between them.

The simplicity of it forbids any statement, that human life is animal life at present. The only search for human and animal life being the same, must be in the past. Only common ancestry can be theorized, not present kinship. The search can only be for a time in the past, when human and any animal blood and life were ever matched the same.

Additionally, if any proof is found that human and animal blood and life can become a match, or can be made a match, then that is only for a future, where humans are animals are the same. But not at present.

Do you mean to say that you refuse to accept human evolution unless you can personally see it happening fast-forward?