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 #259]

But no human blood is animal blood, nor vica versa.

No gorilla blood is chimpanzee blood or vice versa. Gorilla and chimpanzee are both primates.

So are we, differences in blood notwithstanding.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Yes there is. It's actually quite common in taxa that are prone to speciation via polyploidy, such as...

https://courses.botany.wisc.edu/botany_ ... al2004.pdf

Simply put, the newly evolved species are unable to reproduce with either of the parent species due to chromosome number differences.

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

See above. We've seen evolutionary mechanisms produce new species, while we've never once seen gods create anything, let alone a species.

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

That's just flat-out wrong, and renders everything else you post on the subject suspect at best.

[Jose Fly]

So long as the positive 'forensic' match remains unfound between past humans and animals, then animal-human evolution only remains a speculation, not a fact.

Well then, consider the issue settled...

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don't have genes for viral coat proteins and can't cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via "copy-n-paste" (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via "cut-n-paste" (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host's genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3003370/

So again, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. I suppose one can argue that this bit of evidence "proves" human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence "proves" paternity in courts of law.

[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.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You can try to force an answer based upon humans are animals, but not with someone who knows humans are not animals.

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

1) instinctual actions
2) moral actions

Animals act instinctively, not morally.
Humans can do both.

Humans can do both good and evil by choice. Animals can only act by instinct.

When you say animals can act immorally, and do unrighteousness, then I'll at least acknowledge your 'animals are moral' theory is consistent. Until then it's just another dead end of inconsistent ideology.

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.

Thanks. I see the confusion. Arguing that the Gen 1 account of God the Creator has direct evidence, is not a proselytization effort to convince anyone that God is true.

Nowhere do I say that God is proven true by Gen 1, especially not that anyone else must believe it.

I don't care whether anyone believes in God or not, nor in Gen 1, but my only focus is on the arguments evidence for Gen 1, vs that of the Big Bang and primate-human evolution.

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.
[/quote]
It's not possible to argue the evidence of Gen 1, without mentioning the God of Gen 1.

If someone 'feels' proselytized by mentioning God, then they are touchier than many atheists, who mention God many times in many ways...

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.

So you say. However, based upon your misreading of my mentioning God...

[POI]

You can try to force an answer based upon humans are animals, but not with someone who knows humans are not animals.

The fact of the matter is that I now have you backed into an intellectual corner. I asked if such acts of applying (a) empathy, b) fairness, and d) justice) are deemed moral? You agreed these three actions are moral actions and not instead merely instinctual actions. Which is why I removed (c) cooperation) from the original list, as you instead stated c) can be instinctual.

I have since listed many animals which perform or apply the actions of a), b), and/or d), so you now ultimately completely retreat.

Your entire rebuttal is baseless, lacks any substance, and has basically been reduced to nothing more than a 'nuh uh' response, in support of the "Bible God".

In conclusion, other animals engage in acts or 'morality'. You cannot handle this, so you retreat, by telling me I'm forcing something. I will now address the rest below.

Animals can only act by instinct.

Then a), b), and d) are instead instinctual? Please pick a lane.

Nowhere do I say that God is proven true by Gen 1, especially not that anyone else must believe it.

Yes, you do.

(here) 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.

(here) In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another

(here) God creating men and women in His own image

(here) 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

(here) 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

Further, you are already assuming God's existence and are using Gen 1 as one of the 'evidence(s)'. But you have failed.

my only focus is on the arguments evidence for Gen 1, vs that of the Big Bang and primate-human evolution.

Seems your focus is to flat out reject the evidence which demonstrates common ancestry and speciation. Which is why many Christians, who remain Christian, augment or pivot in their positions to include evolutionary biology and then deem Genesis not-so-literal.

It's not possible to argue the evidence of Gen 1, without mentioning the God of Gen 1. If someone 'feels' proselytized by mentioning God, then they are touchier than many atheists, who mention God many times in many ways...

I don't feel 'proselytized'. But you are trying to use Genesis 1 as evidence for God.

[RBD]

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).

Not necessarily. I mean by inner species evolution, or intraspecies, how a specific species, such as primates, evolve with differing characteristics within the same species. Speciation includes this, where the primate species evolves into varieties that no longer interbreed, such as apes and monkeys.

This kind of intraspeciation, or transition to a new form of the same species, is proven evolutionary science.

What's not proven to be evolutionary is new speciation: Where a whole new class of species is formed from an older class, with no cross breeding nor ancestry. Such as fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, etc... and humans.

The whole theory of new species evolution is never proven. All that is given is scientific similarities between them, whether genetic, biological, skeletal, and even behavioral. But they never provide a single positive match between once class of species and another, from which the whole new class springs. This new speciation is not the problem, since it is abundantly observed: At one time there appears a new class of species, fish, then another new class, birds, and then another, mammals, etc...

The dilemma is any class springing from another, where the new becomes separated and no longer that of the other. In becoming separated and no longer, we are presuming the practical language of evolution. New speciation is the proven science. What's problematic is the mechanism of new speciation. Creation or evolution.

And the more sensible argument, en lieu of any proven new speciation evolution, is creation. Why? Because the practical criteria of new speciation is new creation of a new creature on earth. A new creation that is irrevocably separated without match nor breeding, with any other class of species on earth.

The unproven theory of primate-human evolution is based upon the equally unproven theory of new species evolution, from fish to bird, to reptile, to mammal,...to human being.

Gen 1 has the benefit of present separation between all animal class of species, as evidence of being created that way. Where there is no direct proof that they were ever evolutionized one from the other. Which especially includes human beings, that are separated by blood, breeding, and match from all animals themselves, and their different class of species.

The same goes for the present expansive universe of stars, as evidence of being created that way. Where there is no direct evidence of a pre-universe of hot gas without stars, that 'explodes' to form stars over time.

Both intraspecies evolution and an expanding universe are proven science. Primate-human new species evolution is not proven science. Nor is there any proof of an all hot gas into new universe evolution. Both have the present evidence of the creation of all new stars in heaven, and whole new species on earth.

Seems you are okay with the evidence for the former in a), but not the later in b)?

Correct. The reasons are given.

If so, my hunch is because the former does not threaten the claim(s) from Genesis while the later does.

If you can show any pro-Genesis ideological attack in the above argument, then do so. Otherwise, it's simply an objective argument of evolutionary science vs theory, without any pro-human evolution flavoring it.

And yet, we have ample evidence for both.

False. Creation of whole new class of species in one day, cannot sanely be argued as new speciation evolution over thousands or millions of years.

Man cannot be created in the image of God on day 6, and also be evolutionized from apes on any day. The evidence of man being a whole new creature on earth, separated from all ancestry and kinship with any animal on the earth, is the definition of a new creation. And there is no evidence of primates and humans ever being positively matched in genes, biology, nor anatomy on any day of the earth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #266]

The same goes for the present expansive universe of stars, as evidence of being created that way. Where there is no direct evidence of a pre-universe of hot gas without stars, that 'explodes' to form stars over time.

There is no direct evidence----or even indirect evidence----that there was planetary vegetation before there were stars.

Creation of whole new class of species in one day, cannot sanely be argued as new speciation evolution over thousands or millions of years.

Creation of whole new classes of species in one day cannot be argued, period (there's no evidence of a whole new species being created in one day).

Man cannot be created in the image of God on day 6, and also be evolutionized from apes on any day.

How about splitting the difference and concluding that man evolved into an image of God?

[POI]

What's not proven to be evolutionary is new speciation: Where a whole new class of species is formed from an older class, with no cross breeding nor ancestry. Such as fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, etc... and humans. The whole theory of new species evolution is never proven.

Here is where your provided strawman shines, and then continues below. There is no 'new speciation'. It's just 'speciation'. Speciation is the broad term for the process where new and distinct species evolve from a single ancestral species. "New speciation" is not a standard scientific term; it's essentially a redundant phrase as speciation is, by definition, the process of creating new species. When a single species splits into two or more distinct species, that process is called speciation. I've already provided a link to speciation in my prior response. You have not addressed it here.

Correct.

Noted. This tells me a lot.

If you can show any pro-Genesis ideological attack in the above argument, then do so. Otherwise, it's simply an objective argument of evolutionary science vs theory, without any pro-human evolution flavoring it.

That's impossible for me to do when you misrepresent the side you reject.

False. Creation of whole new class of species in one day, cannot sanely be argued as new speciation evolution over thousands or millions of years.

Man cannot be created in the image of God on day 6, and also be evolutionized from apes on any day. The evidence of man being a whole new creature on earth, separated from all ancestry and kinship with any animal on the earth, is the definition of a new creation. And there is no evidence of primates and humans ever being positively matched in genes, biology, nor anatomy on any day of the earth.

Until you understand the basics of both 1) common ancestry, as well as 2) speciation, you will be arguing oranges while evolutionary biology instead provides evidence for apples.

[RBD]

Also, the Bible says the light of the Creator was within the universe on day 1.

Then how do you know that the light of the Creator wasn't the flash of the Big Bang?

If it's a big bang without any previous universe of gas and dust alone? No problem.

The Creator spoke the word, and all at once the universe of stars exploded into shining light. In an instant, they all twinkled in His eye...

The problem with the Big Bang theory as postulated, is the previous universe of gas and dust alone without stars yet formed. That has no direct evidence at all.

Ever since creation of the universe of stars, there has always been shining stars therein. Including gas and dirt to form new stars, adding to the ones first created in a moment and a twinkling of the eye...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #236]

Then we have evidence that the Archaeopteryx did not interbreed with reptiles or birds?

We don't have to have evidence that it didn't.

False. If a whole new species is evolved from another, such as bird to reptile, then there would have to be past breeding between with the former, and only present breeding with the latter. If the creature were a bird, that never breed with reptiles, then it's not a new reptile, but only a bird. There was no new speciation, but only the same old species evolving with new characteristics.

The argument is not about intraspecies evolution with new characteristics for the same species. The argument is about a whole new class of species, that only breeds within it's own class, or as Gen 1 calls it, after their own kind:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This states that all new speciation is by creation, not by evolution. Evolution must prove, that a separate kind of species ever had common breeding ancestry with another. I.e. One kind of species, the bird, evolved into another whole class of species, the reptile.

For the Archeopteryx to have evolved from bird to reptile, then it must be proven, that it bred only with birds after their kind, and then only bred with reptiles after their kind. And as you say, there's no proof either way, which suggests a short life span on earth. It could have been a hybrid bird or hybrid reptile, that didn't last long enough on earth to even show which class of species it actually bred with...A short-lived hybrid doomed to fast extinction.

For primate-human evolution, only new speciation matters, not intraspecies transition, mutation, and hybrids. A whole new class of species would have to evolve from an older class: fish to amphibian to bird to reptile to mammal to human.

They are all new creaturesappearing on earth, that have no present interbreeding. If they evolved from one to the other, then common ancestry of breeding must be proven between one and the other. Otherwise, new speciation is not by evolution, but by creation:

Gen 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

There is no evidence of new speciation by evolution.

https://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

Some of the best examples of speciation are examples of diversification on archipelagos...Darwin's Finches. Morphological and genetic studies indicate that they are derived from single ancestral finch, i.e., are monophyletic.

We're talking about new speciation, not simple speciation.

Diversified evolution of finches from a single ancestral finch species, is proven speciation evolution. But that is not new speciation, where there is a whole new and separate class of species. That is never proven to by by evolution.

Only new speciation evolution can account for fish-reptile-mammal, etc... and especially primate-human evolution.

Any proven argument of simple speciation, where the new finches are still the same old finch species, does not apply to new speciation, where the new human being was supposed to be an old ape...

However, there is still the age-old theory of creation.

Creation appeals to a non-scientific process [a process which cannot be scientifically measured], thus it doesn't qualify as a theory.

The universe of stars and life is a process of the natural sciences. Whether created or evolved, the natural scientific process continues.

The universe of stars can be scientifically measured. The separate life of humans and animals can be scientifically measured.

A theory is anything that is plausible. Scientific theory is anything plausible by scientific principle, data, and/or physical evidence.

The scientific principle of new speciation is a new creature separate from all other creatures. Therefore, the scientific principle of new speciation is by definition, new creationism. And there is no physical evidence of any new speciation by evolution.

New speciation evolution, especially from apes to man, appeals to the scientifically unproven process of ideology.