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 #227]

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.

We still have animal bodies now. How can you deny that?

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

Remember this?

"Our closest relatives have the same blood groups as we do, with subtle differences"

.....

"For example, testing blood samples using human monoclonal antibodies, you would find that bonobos have exclusively type A blood; chimpanzees are predominantly A with smaller number having type O; Orangutans from Borneo have all four blood types, A, B, AB and O."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/jun-12- ... -1.6062427

[POI]

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.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Please pick one... a), b), and d) are considered...

1) instinctual actions
2) moral actions

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

Quote me where this is about proving God is.

Please see the parts in red.

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...)

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

It's only proving Gen 1 has more direct evidence, than primate-human evolution and the big bang theories.

That is because when you are given direct evidence, you then react/respond with a strawman argument.

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

This statement presents as very hypocritical, being you mentioned 'God' 7 times in the original post.

[Clownboat]

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...)

I acknowledge that you are rejecting established science in order to maintain a preconceived religious belief. This is pretty common on this planet as lots of primate mammalian animals that are religious seem to do it.

[RBD]

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

Things that are similar make things similar, not the same. Science of similarity proves things are similar, not the same.

Whether it be between humans and animals, or earth and moon.

The Great Apes have the same chromosomes still separate which we have fused.

Really close. Not the same. The separation of one chromosome between man and ape, in the world of humans and animals, is like the fractional distance between the earth and moon in the universe of stars: Really close. Not the same.

We are closer in similarity to primates, as compared to elephants, the same as the earth is more similar to the moon, than to the sun.

(They're both primates.)

(And so are we.)

They are both animals, not we.

The one blood of man is not animal blood. We have our blood, and they have theirs. Really similar in several ways, not the same, nor can one intermix with the other, like oil and water.

[RBD]

[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?

You mean other than the earth? I didn't know any other life-bearing planets were found.

Also, the Bible says the light of the Creator was within the universe on day 1. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the Bible, where plants and trees grow without light.

And of course, whether anyone believes it or not, is irrelevant to the Bible being inerrant within itself, and with science.

If the Bible says there was plants and trees when there was darkness over all the earth, then there would be a scientific problem. But the Bible says the earth was void of all life at that time. Science confirmed.

[RBD]

[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.

Then we have evidence that the Archaeopteryx did not interbreed with reptiles or birds? Otherwise, it was either a bird or reptile with transformational characteristics of one or the other. Without proving the animal's breeding, there is no proof of an entirely new species on earth, that breeds independently with itself alone.

New speciation is the science that accounts for wholly new and separate species on earth, that do not interbreeding with any other than itself.

There is no evidence of any entirely new species on earth, that no longer has any breeding relations with an old species, that supposedly produced it.

The fact of new speciation is by simple observation, and not in question. It's only the mechanism , that is questioned: Creation or evolution.

There is no evidence of new speciation by evolution. However, there is still the age-old theory of creation.

New species creation is not the alternative to evolution. It's new species evolution that has been made a modern alternative to creation, and neither are proven. All this is self-evident on earth is new speciation of animals, as well as new creature man separate from all animals.

First, there is no new separate species of animal appearing on earth, after the appearance of man. Therefore, we cannot prove creation nor evolution by observation. Nor can creation be disproven by evolution, since there is no proof of past new speciation by evolution.

Gen 1 states the age-old principle of all animals species being created after their kind. Evolution from one kind to another is only lately theorized, without any proof of a past match for a new species that has no match.

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.

True. A bit of humor.

[RBD]

[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)?

They knew the law of good and evil commanded them. They were righteous before transgressing in unrighteousness. Animals know neither good nor evil, nor can do righteousness nor unrighteousness.

Neither do babes:

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Babes are not animals born of men and women, that are no animals.

[RBD]

That's if the remains are human, and if the dating is accurate.

You present with absolutely no rebuttal here. I've already stated the reason(s) humans are demonstrated to be much older than 6K years ago, in post 105.

True. It's telling when someone only acknowledges a rebuttal, when there isn't one.

All the chromosomes, DNA, etc... in humans are human. Not primate. Similarities mean being similar. Only 100% match means being the same. And the blood and seed of humans are all human, not animal at all. The blood and seed of animals is only of animals, not human. Humans cannot be an animal, nor an animal species.

You either still a) represent with a genuine misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology even puts forth, or, b) are purposefully 'joshing' me. This goes all the way back to post 104, and so-forth...

You either don't understand the difference between the science of inner species evolution, vs new species evolutionary theory, or you purposefully don't want to.

I've given you enough chances to acknowledge the difference, or at least ask the difference, so it must be the latter.

[POI]

You either don't understand the difference between the science of inner species evolution, vs new species evolutionary theory, or you purposefully don't want to.

I've given you enough chances to acknowledge the difference, or at least ask the difference, so it must be the latter.

First of all, I think what you mean is a) (interspecies evolution) and not (inner species evolution). And the other is also known as b) 'speciation.' --> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation).

Seems you are okay with the evidence for the former in a), but not the later in b)? If so, my hunch is because the former does not threaten the claim(s) from Genesis while the later does. And yet, we have ample evidence for both. Again, this is why many Christians are forced to take a new stance on the claims from Genesis. I admire that you continue to plant your flag, or double/triple down, but the evidence is against you.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #234]

The Great Apes have the same chromosomes still separate which we have fused.

Really close. Not the same. The separation of one chromosome between man and ape, in the world of humans and animals, is like the fractional distance between the earth and moon in the universe of stars: Really close. Not the same.

Gorilla
Chimpanzee
Orangutan
Human

Each primate species is really close to the others, but not the same.

The one blood of man is not animal blood. We have our blood, and they have theirs. Really similar in several ways, not the same, nor can one intermix with the other, like oil and water.

Repetition is futile. No matter how many times you ignore my point on primate blood, it's not going away.