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 #297]

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

Then don't believe it. So long as there is no evidence against vegetation by a light not of stars, then I'll continue to believe it.

So long as there is no evidence against the goddess Nu Kua fashioning the first humans from clay, will you continue to believe it? (I assume that you believe this, since there's no evidence against it.)

[bluegreenearth]

It is frustrating to engage with a theist who appears to be either incapable of distinguishing unfalsifiable claims from falsifiable claims or is unwilling to do so. For the theist to treat an unfalsifiable claim the same as a falsifiable claim on account of its disconfirming evidence being unavailable or missing is to commit a reasoning error. The theist needs to acquire an appreciation for the fact that supporting evidence or the lack of disconfirming evidence only functions to justify belief in falsifiable claims, not unfalsifiable claims.

[Jose Fly]

And so, we have common ancestry with yeast, bacteria, and flies. All this proves is what is already known: All natural flesh and living matter on earth is made of the same substance: Dust. The commonality of all natural mortal life forms, is not a common ancestry between different classes of species, not man with beasts of the field.

There is no proven match specific to humans and any other animal on earth.

That's literally the opposite of what the data I posted shows, and all you've done above is reply "Nuh uh", apparently expecting folks to go with your empty gainsaying over the actual data.

When that which is specific to humans, whether blood, seed, or 2000 'Alus', are ever specific to any animal, then we have a match. Once again, 'related' and 'sharing' in part does not make all parts the same.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you even understand the material I posted?

No one is denying the shared similarities between humans and all animals on earth, so far as having natural mortal bodies and biological systems. But, so long as there is no match between any human and animal, then no human is an animal. It's observable sense, as well as scientific comparison studies, that humans are not animals today. That is not a question.

Again, this is nothing more than "Nuh uh", which is on the level of elementary school playgrounds. Are you able to do better?

The only question for evolution of one class of animal having common ancestry with another class, as well as humans with primates, is some time in the past, where there was a match between them. Rather than some commonality of all life forms on earth, where is the specific ancestral match from which sprang fishes and birds, reptiles and mammals, or humans and primates along different evolutionary paths. Otherwise, all we ever have is an abundance of similarities study between two separate paths that never intersect.

That's complete garbled nonsense. Try again.

Origin of species by evolution is never proven for any supposed separation of a whole class of species from another presently separated class. Origin of species by creation of each class independently, also not proven scientifically, still remains sensible.

Same thing....that makes zero sense and bears no resemblance to anything in biology or taxonomy.

Of course, the problem with the whole argument, is that no such paternity test will show in court a primate parent of a human person, nor vica versa.

Well duh. That's like saying the genetic test showing that I come from German ancestry can't be accurate because it didn't show that I had parent from Germany.

If you don't understand that point, you're waaaaaay over your head here.

The whole search for past skeletal matches has continued to fail. The same for genetic, biological, DNA, 'Alus', etc...Simply give the parental match from which humans sprang from any animal.

Says who? You? Seriously....why do you think anyone would believe all that merely because you say so?

Continued similarities today only conclude continued similarities that don't match. In that regard, all naturally living organisms and physical creatures on earth have the common similarity of dust and mortality.

Darwin's dilemma of no evidence, where evidence ought be to prove origin of species by evolution, is simple: There's no there, there. Creation remains the simplest and most sensible means of new creatures appearing on earth, that have no present nor past match.

All of the scientific efforts to resolve the dilemma with direct evidence, whether in skeletal remains or biological comparisons, have only continued to result in similarities of paths, but not match to diverge from. Evolution exists within a species once formed, but not for origin of species.

Same thing....I, nor anyone else, is going to take any of that as true just because you say so, especially given the bizarre nonsense you've posted in this thread.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #270]

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.

As the reptilian ancestors of creatures such as Archaeopteryx evolved, they began to develop features which we recognize in modern birds. As the breeding went on, those avian features became more prominant as they were perpetuated in the offspring of the organisms which had those features. As their bodies became more avian, they separated from the breeding of their previous reptilian lineage. Result----birds.

This is a circular explanation based upon unproven evolution between classes of animals.

"As the breeding went on, those avian features became more prominent as they were perpetuated in the offspring of the organisms which had those features. As their bodies became more avian"

This is the unproven evolutionary assumption, that is necessary for an evolutionary conclusion. There is no record of becoming 'avian' dominant, rather than remaining reptilian.

Without assuming evolution into another whole class of animal, the limited evidence is for a simple reptile hybrid, that bred for a short space before extinction. It was probably able to make extended airborne leaps for food and escape, like that of flying squirrels.

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.

Here you're claiming that scientific evidence has to "prove" itself but that a dogmatic statement of faith doesn't. That's backwards.

I'm stating the creation explanation for new animal classes, rather than an assumed evolutionary process. Neither of which have yet to be scientifically proven beyond doubt.

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

We're talking about both. One is about the overall process, the other about specific mechanisms. The process and the mechanisms are related, because the mechanisms drive the process.

False. Speciation within a class is a proven evolutionary process. New speciation evolving into a whole new class is an unproven theory.

New speciation of new animal classes is either by creation or evolution. Since neither is proven by scientific evidence, then either requires faith to accept as true. Or, remain a skeptic waiting for final evidentiary proof.

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.

Species don't have to be able to interbreed to have come from a common ancestor.

I'm only referring to different classes of species. Your references to evolution within a class does not pertain.

Primates have evolved into separate primates, that do not now interbreed, while remaining primates. Fish have not evolved into amphibians, nor reptiles, birds, nor mammals.

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.

Are you trying to make the old "ain't never been no fish give birth to a monkey" argument?

No fish give birth to amphibian to reptile to bird to mammal to primate to monkey to man...to be more accurate.

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

I believe I've made such comment before, but there's more scientific evidence of humans being primates than there is of a planet with vegetation existing without a star for it to orbit.

There's obvious physical similarities between humans and primates, but no scientific evidence humans are primates. There's no scientific evidence of vegetation growing by the Creator's light, however there is plants growing by artificial light.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #269]

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..

You state this as fact, presenting no testable evidence of that being the way it happened.

I am quoting the creation example of the universe created as is.

The testable evidence suggests that all the stars were formed from gas which was drawn together by gravity into galaxies.

Which is the universe as is. There is no direct evidence of a pre-universe with only gas alone without stars yet formed.

Since Genesis mentions only stars and not galaxies or galactic clusters, the Genesis story has insufficient explanatory power.

Genesis is sufficient for the universe as is. It does not promote any theorized pre-universe of gas alone.

The pre-universal Big Bang is only speculative theory, that continues to ride piggy back on the proven expanding universe of gas and stars.

Based on the universe as is, I believe the universe was created as is. Without evidence, you believe in a pre-universe that never was.

[RBD]

You're the one that said the difference is biological, so what biological feature does one have that the other doesn't?

Google it already.

Google isn't the one saying that human blood and semen aren't animal blood and semen. You're saying that. You're wrong, but you're saying it.

Either google it for the first time, or try googling again.

Or, request animal blood for transfusion, and breed with an animal.

If you have any evidence or argument to counter the obvious,

I posted that already.

You mean consensus of scientists? Like man-made global cooling, warming, then climate change? Peddle that elsewhere.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #276]

None of the great ape species can interbreed, so an inability to interbreed doesn't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

Intraspecies evolution results in a class of species separating into non-breeding groups of the same species. Apes have common ancestry in the primate species, but not presently with other types of primates.

Humans are completely separate from any animal species on earth, by virtue of no interbreeding.

But you just confirmed that other primate species don't interbreed, which means that not interbreeding isn't what separates humans from other primate species.

Not just seed, but also blood biologically. The first separation is spiritual intelligence with power to do good or evil.

Anyone saying humans are animals for any reason, but animals are not humans, are only arguing an inconsistent ideology, that must turn to personal interpretation, rather than consistent analysis.

Anyone saying that humans don't have animal bodies is arguing an "inconsistent ideology".

You still indicate very strongly that the idea of humankind having any relation to the animal world really bothers you.

You still misrepresent others by sloppiness or lying. Humans not being animals, does not mean we have no kind of relation with them. We have natural mortal bodies on earth, just like all flesh and blood.

You also project your own insecurities on others. You have a real problem with humans not being animals.

If you could make your peace with that, personal spiritual growth would be a lot easier.

People can do that. Not animals. It confirms humans are not animals.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #279]

You need to learn the difference between a scientific argument disproving something, vs an argument against something, that's only not proven by science.

You need to learn the difference between believing something because it has scientific evidence supporting it, vs believing something because the religious book of your choice says it.

You need to learn the difference between scientific evidence supporting it, vs proving it.

The evidence for Gen 1, is that humans are apart from all animals on the earth, first spiritually, and also biologically. In both cases, we are similar, but not the same.

The irrevocable separation is intelligence, blood, and seed.

The Bible reveals the light of the Creator gave life to vegetation, before creating sunlight. Since no science disproves it, then neither does any unbelief.

Ancient Egyptian cosmology reveals that creation arose from the primordial waters. Since no science disproves it, then neither does any unbelief.

Unless you're misstating it, then the Egyptian cosmology contradicts itself: Creation does not evolve, nor arise from something else. It's created. Where there was nothing, now there is something...

Universal evolutionism has nothing to do with creation, nor with a Creator.

A universal evolutionist has as much credibility talking about creation, as an animal does talking about the stars...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #307]

But you just confirmed that other primate species don't interbreed, which means that not interbreeding isn't what separates humans from other primate species.

Not just seed, but also blood biologically.

The great apes don't all have the same blood either, so the same principle applies.

The first separation is spiritual intelligence with power to do good or evil.

That brings us back to the question of whether or not the first humans were animals before they knew good and evil (Genesis 3:22).

Humans not being animals, does not mean we have no kind of relation with them. We have natural mortal bodies on earth, just like all flesh and blood.

Yeah----just like all animal flesh and blood.

You keep invoking "blood and seed" as what differentiate between humans and other organisms, but blood and seed are both physical and thus don't account for our spiritual distinction......unless the divide between the material and the spiritual is arbitrary and doesn't really exist.

Since we're just as physical as "animals" are, who's to say that they're any less spiritual than we are?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #308]

The evidence for Gen 1, is that humans are apart from all animals on the earth, first spiritually, and also biologically. In both cases, we are similar, but not the same.

The evidence that we and the great apes have a common ancestor is our fused chromosome #2, which has an inactive centromere corresponding to chimpanzee chromosome 13.

Unless you're misstating it, then the Egyptian cosmology contradicts itself: Creation does not evolve, nor arise from something else.

If the universe could be created with an original batch of stars and new stars form later, why couldn't the universe arise from primordial waters and new stars form later?