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]

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.

To clarify: No new class of species on earth; Fish, amphibian, bird, reptile, mammal...mankind, has any breeding relations with an older different class, that supposedly produced the new class.

Simply put, the newly evolved species within a class of species, is not a wholly new class of species, but only a new member of the same old species. There are evolved members of primates, that all have primate heritage, but do not reproduce with other evolved primate members: Apes, gorillas, moneys, orangutangs, etc... But there are no newly evolved primates, that have any heritage from a another class: New mammals evolve from the mammal class of species, not from fish, reptile, bird, amphibians... No monkey evolved from a fish, nor any man from and ape.

Evolution speciation within a class of species, is not debatable. Evolutionary new speciation of a new class of species, is not proven, where the reptile class of species, has any past ancestry with the fish, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc...classes of species.

New class speciation is either by creation, or by evolution. Sciences has not yet proven either, nor disproven the other.

Scientific proof of speciation within a certain class, is well documented, and continues to be recent, as with the Polyploid. But that's not the argument for the unproven theory of new speciation between classes of species.

Gen 1 origin of species by creation says, that each new class of animal species was created at once, and separate from the others. Each class of animal is created independently of the others.

Origin of species by evolution says, that all classes of animals evolved over time from one original class, such as the fish.

[Jose Fly]

To clarify: No new class of species on earth; Fish, amphibian, bird, reptile, mammal...mankind, has any breeding relations with an older different class, that supposedly produced the new class.

Simply put, the newly evolved species within a class of species, is not a wholly new class of species, but only a new member of the same old species. There are evolved members of primates, that all have primate heritage, but do not reproduce with other evolved primate members: Apes, gorillas, moneys, orangutangs, etc... But there are no newly evolved primates, that have any heritage from a another class: New mammals evolve from the mammal class of species, not from fish, reptile, bird, amphibians... No monkey evolved from a fish, nor any man from and ape.

Evolution speciation within a class of species, is not debatable. Evolutionary new speciation of a new class of species, is not proven, where the reptile class of species, has any past ancestry with the fish, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc...classes of species.

New class speciation is either by creation, or by evolution. Sciences has not yet proven either, nor disproven the other.

Scientific proof of speciation within a certain class, is well documented, and continues to be recent, as with the Polyploid. But that's not the argument for the unproven theory of new speciation between classes of species.

Gen 1 origin of species by creation says, that each new class of animal species was created at once, and separate from the others. Each class of animal is created independently of the others.

Origin of species by evolution says, that all classes of animals evolved over time from one original class, such as the fish.

None of that makes any sense at all. You're using taxonomic terms (species, class) but not at all properly or in any way that corresponds to how they're used in taxonomy. You hopefully remember this from high school....



See how the way you're using "class" doesn't match up? For example, "primates" are an Order, within the Class Mammalia. "Fish" on the other hand are made up of two Superclasses (Agnatha and Osteichthyes) and one Class (Condrichthyes) and so on.

So from a science perspective, you're all over the map, misusing basic terms, and not making a lick of sense.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #290]

No gorilla blood is chimpanzee blood or vice versa.

Gorilla and chimpanzee are both primates. So are we, differences in blood notwithstanding.

Nor gorilla type animal blood is chimpanzee type animal blood. No human type A blood is human type O blood.
But no type of human blood is type of animal blood.

And so the differences in human type blood and animal type blood notwithstanding, no human and animal blood are the same in any type.

Gorilla blood is no other animal blood and no other animal blood is gorilla blood. If that degree of blood difference doesn't keep gorillas from being primates, then it doesn't keep humans from being primates.