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...)

[POI]

False. No more than all human blood would be interchangeable.

Many humans can interchange blood with other humans, as well as animals with other animals. But no human blood is interchangeable with animal blood, and vica versa.

I can't believe this is an actual conversation, at this point still...? Xenotransfusions are generally not recommended, due to the potential for severe and even fatal reactions. This is because each species has a unique set of antigens on their red blood cells that can trigger an immune response in a recipient from a different species. This is why a giraffe cannot receive a blood transfusion from a hippo. And yet, they are both "animals". Speciation is ultimately why. And it is clear you still do not truly understand speciation either.

You can continue argue for proven speciation within the same class of animal, and I'll continue to point out that new speciation between classes is not proven.

And you will continue to present is big giant strawman. Yet again, there are 4 specific types of presented speciation (i.e): 1) allopatric, 2) peripatric, 3) parapatric, and 4) sympatric. Which one are you referring to exactly? Please pick one. I asked this already, but you either have not looked into it too much, or, you realize none of the 4 options help your position in any meaningful way. To instead call it "new speciation" is purely redundant and addresses nothing regarding the 4 actually types of speciation.

If you want to argue that human and animal blood can be piped into one another, then feel free. Any poison can be injected into the bloodstream of a person or an animal.

You are now pivoting, or moving the goalposts. You have repeated, ad nauseum, that "no human blood is interchangeable with animal blood." Now you wish to pivot. Immune systems are completely different among most/all species. The homo sapien is just one of almost countless species.

So, animal-human blood transfusion got successfully banned, because they are not compatible to give life to one another.

All I can say here is that it is clear you need to read up on some topics, namely xenotransfusions, speciation, immune systems, and common ancestry.

Good job. Humans are either created that way, or have evolved that way. In the absence of direct scientific proof either way, then anyone can choose to believe one or the other, or remain a skeptic waiting for final proof.

Since you have mentioned the court of law before, this entire process was brought forth in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in the 2000's. The "creationists" side had no response, which means they too had to reconcile evolutionary fact(s). Sorry buddy. I sent you a small clip explaining that specific element of the trial. But feel free to address the entire case.

Ignoring the evidence of man being separate from all animals on earth, does not make it go away. Nor is it any argument against being created that way.

I'm tired of explaining the basics. See above, when I repeatedly give you the basics.

It's the science way of proving at this time, that faith is required either way.

If we try to muddy the waters this much, then maybe any/all assessed evidence is ultimately just faith-based inquiries? Heck, maybe you are not even real and I'm in a simulation? Can we really ever know anything?.?.?.?

There is more present evidence for Gen 1 creation of man in God's image, than for man evolving from a primate animal.

I probably would have been right there with you if we both were having this discussion as little as a few hundred years ago. However, we have means to more discovery now. This is why so many Christians has had to adapt to keep Genesis relevant.

Deceiving oneself in an effort to reconcile the unreconcilable, is more like lying to oneself. It's mostly wishful thinking

And this isn't you, in a nutshell, because....?

[POI]

False. With humans they are instinctual and moral. With animals they are instinctual only.

A human can morally judge and act contrary to instinct. Not animals.

Now you are just moving the goalposts and/or introducing special pleading. I asked you, long ago, if a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice were (instinctual or moral) actions. You stated c) is an instinctual action, but the others are moral actions. So I've since excluded c) from the conversation. Now you are pivoting.

One last time: moral actions are for humans, not for animals.

Then you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. You agreed that empathy, fairness, and justice are not instinctual topics, but moral ones. We also know that other species demonstrate these topics. You are backed into a corner with no way out. You now need to pivot severely, or now move the goalposts accordingly on one of two categories listed below. (i.e.)

You either need to:

1) State that empathy, fairness, and justice are also instinctual and not moral.

or)

2) Argue that other species do not ever demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice.

You have no third option.

It's your move buddy. Otherwise, It's checkmate. Do not collect $200.00. Do not pass-go. The debate is essentially over.

[RBD]

New speciation is origin of species by creation or evolution, neither of which are yet scientifically proven.

Again, there is no 'new speciation'. Please pick one:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/modes-of-speciation/

1) Allopatric (allo = other, patric = place): New species formed from geographically isolated populations.

2) Peripatric (peri = near, patric = place): New species formed from a small population isolated at the edge of a larger population.

3) Parapatric (para = beside, patric = place): New species formed from a continuously distributed population.

4) Sympatric (sym = same, patric = place): New species formed from within the range of the ancestral population.

All within the same class of species, with new members that may not interbreed with others in the same class, such as the primate family.

New speciation is a whole new class without common ancestry nor kinship, i.e. a whole new creature on earth. Believed to be a new creation, or believed to be a new evolution.

[RBD]

[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.)

Your assumptions are all wrong, because they're ideologically bent.

Believability does not demand belief, but only allows for it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #313]

Ok, I meant the Bible Creator, not a pagan god. With the Bible, referring to a god is as referring to no god at all.

From a pagan perspective, that's irrelevant.

No one can believe in Gen 1 creation of the universe of stars, and also the Big Bang evolution from a pre-universe without stars.

No one can believe in Gen 1 creation of man in God's image, and also the evolution of man from apes over time.

So there's no room for "interpretation", as apologists often propose?

That doesn't give Genesis any advantage.

The Bible dictates the one kind of Creator. Men dictate their own kind of gods.

Then isn't it striking how close a resemblance there is between Jehovah and the patriarchal monarchs of the ancient Near East?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #316]

Gorilla blood is no other animal blood and no other animal blood is gorilla blood.

False association. Human blood type A is still human blood. Gorilla blood is still animal blood.

Gorilla blood and chimpanzee blood are of completely different types, and the gorilla and chimpanzee are both primates. Thus, humans can have blood of different types from the great apes and still be primates.

Deny that as many times as you wish; that's the way it is.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #324]

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.)

Your assumptions are all wrong, because they're ideologically bent.

I'm employing the same logic that you are.

Believability does not demand belief, but only allows for it.

Then belief in Genesis is no more demanded than is belief in Nu Kua.

[RBD]

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.

It's not frustrating, but only normal for some people to try and define terms, and set narratives to produce their own desired outcome. That does not mean the opposing side must conform.

So long as there is any confirmed evidence, direct or indirect, then a claim is falsifiable and believable. As an eyewitness in a court of law, the Bible testimony can be judged as true, by the accuracy of all the indirect evidence surrounding it. Any juror can reasonably believe it, or not believe. However, no juror can say the Bible testimony can't possibly be true, so long as the surrounding evidence remains true.

It's the same for man created in God's image, or evolved from primates. There is present evidence surrounding both sides, but no scientific evidence proving either. Therefore, either creation of man, or evolution of man, can be believed as possible.

[RBD]

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.

False analogy. Primate ancestry is not accurate, when no parent of any human is shown to be a primate.

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

The problem is being so caught up in similarities and circumstantial evidence, that you miss the obvious demand for a positive match between humans and primates, in order to accept primate-human evolution.

I consistently demand one simple thing: An actual complete 100% match between any human and any animal at any time on earth. And all I get is more similarities arguments, as though they should suffice for factual proof. It may for the committed believer, but not for the skeptic.

There's certainly enough scientific evidence showing similarities between humans and primates, but without the actual complete match, it remains only circumstantial. People can choose to believe in primate-human evolution by such surrounding evidence, but people can also choose not to.

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?

Then give the match, whether skeletal, biological, genetic, or 'alus'.

The science doesn't fail to supply much similarity, but without supplying the positive match, they are remain circumstantial not direct proof.

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.

It's not bizarre to demand positive proof, rather than just more similarities hinting at something that may be true, but not yet proven true.

It's not that the science you give is wrong, nor that you don't give it succinctly, and clearly enough for a layman to understand. It just doesn't reach the goalpost of a positive match between humans and primates at any time on earth.

And the fact that you make accusations without specific examples, shows the cause is more ideological than scientific. Just because you're so personally invested in it, doesn't mean everyone else has to accept all the circumstantial evidence as conclusive.

[POI]

New speciation is origin of species by creation or evolution, neither of which are yet scientifically proven.

Again, there is no 'new speciation'. Please pick one:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/modes-of-speciation/

1) Allopatric (allo = other, patric = place): New species formed from geographically isolated populations.

2) Peripatric (peri = near, patric = place): New species formed from a small population isolated at the edge of a larger population.

3) Parapatric (para = beside, patric = place): New species formed from a continuously distributed population.

4) Sympatric (sym = same, patric = place): New species formed from within the range of the ancestral population.

All within the same class of species, with new members that may not interbreed with others in the same class, such as the primate family.

New speciation is a whole new class without common ancestry nor kinship, i.e. a whole new creature on earth. Believed to be a new creation, or believed to be a new evolution.

Evolutionary biology does not even propose a 'new speciation.' Hence, like I've already been saying, you are presenting a big fat juicy strawman argument. Way to go