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]

[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?

Not without changing Bible creation and human evolution. Bible creation is at once wholly new. Human evolution is an old transition over time.

If you were any real human evolutionist, you should object to pseudo-creationists trying to redefine evolution into creation. I'm a real creationist. I don't allow creationism to be redefined into evolution.

In any case, the Bible already exposes the duplicity of people that don't want to believe it as written, and so change the words into something they find more 'acceptable' to themselves:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

That doesn't give Genesis any advantage.

So, you're not really involved? It's just a browny points thing to you?

The Bible doesn't need any advantage. The Book is what it is as written. People either believe it, and learn things of life accordingly, or they can go believe something else more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

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?

Sure. Jehovah is the eternal patriarchal Monarch. Therefore, it's only natural to emulate His rule.

It's only a few that practiced His rule in a manner that pleased Him. This not only included men believing on Him, but also some pagans wise enough to serve Him:

Jer 25:9

Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

2Ch 36:23

Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.



it's only natural to do the things instructed in the Bible. What's unnatural is people choosing to do things against common sense, such as believing, declaring, and acting like humans are only animals.

2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

[POI]

You have repeated, ad nauseum, that "no human blood is interchangeable with animal blood." Now you wish to pivot.

No, now I have to state the obvious: Humans and animals not being able to transfuse blood, means not doing so to give life.

It's not about the mechanical ability to pipe fluids into humans and animals alike.

Repeated from post 321, which is a very critical part you skipped--> 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.

No interested in the successes or failures of others. I answer for myself. There is no direct evidence that the 23 chromosomes, with 1 fusion, must be by evolution. Man with 23 and primates with 24 can still be by creation. People are free to believe either way, or remain a skeptic awaiting final proof.

I sincerely doubt you have really looked into this topic nearly as deeply as the opponents which ultimately had no rebuttal from the Dover trial.

Also, I find it very interesting, regarding your sustained hyper-skepticism pertaining to evolutionary biology; especially due to the fact that evolution is just as well established, from a theoretical perspective, as the many topics you gladly accept -- such as gravitational theory, or germ theory, or cell theory.

Only committed ideologues say something is proven, when there is only circumstantial evidence..

I predict, that as more evidence is presented for you to explore, you will merely continue to move the goal posts accordingly and/or create a new strawman argument -- to protect your ancient book.

Again, can we really know anything? It's a legitimate question. Is EVERYTHING faith based? If so, just tell me now? But so far, all you have demonstrated is to argue against a strawman position.

True. Plenty of circumstantial evidence has been discovered in modern biological, genetic, skeletal remains, etc...It can certainly lead someone to believe in primate-human evolution. But without direct scientific proof, both creation and evolution remain a choice of faith.

Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

If adaptation means trying to believe both Gen 1 and primate-human evolution, then it only proves how many Christians don't believe Gen 1 as written. Which is simply a matter of half-hearted and unintelligent faith in the Bible.

Believe it or not, I admire you (here) for sticking to your guns. You are not trying to now rationalize Genesis to taste, because you accept evolution, which you would then know that evolution may defy a literal reading of Genesis.

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

However, you either 1) create a special standard for accepted evidence for evolution, and/or 2) do not fully understand the topic for which you find threatening to your current belief(s)? I'm not sure which one, or both, you fall under (yet)?

[POI]

False, unless you have a quote. And if I agreed, I was wrong. Give the quote, and I'll take a look. But if I did agree, I suspect it was for not taking enough thought on secondary issues, since the whole argument is baseless. Animals are not moral nor immoral.

There is no point of my producing direct quotes from you because you have demonstrated here that you will merely cover your tracks anyways. I removed the topic of (cooperation) from the list of (4), as you deemed it as an instinctual action. But you deemed the other (3) topics as moral actions. The challenge still stands:

You have backed yourself into a corner of (2) available options. Either option is damning... Please argue one of them or concede defeat...

1) Pivot, and state that empathy, fairness, and justice are actually instinctual actions, as opposed to moral actions.

or)

2) Somehow argue that no other species ever demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice.

You have no third option.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #329]

Just because you're so personally invested in it, doesn't mean everyone else has to accept all the circumstantial evidence as conclusive.

....you say, as you dismiss the entire body of biological and paleontological evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial"

Correct. All indirect similarities, without a positive match past nor present.

and assert that a plant-covered Earth must have existed before the sun because a supposedly inerrant Bible verse says so.

Assert could have existed without contradicting science. Also note plants existing by artificial light. Which you ignore.

[RBD]

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.

The comments above fail to appropriately address the stated grievance.

Tacit agreement that the comments above are clear, easily understood, and consistent with eyewitness testimony supported by surrounding indirect evidence.

I believe all the Bible testimony, based upon all the unerring evidence surrounding it. Someone else can disbelieve it. Another can remain a skeptic withholding a verdict, unless direct evidence is proven.

No reasonably intelligent person can say faith in the testimony is completely unfounded, and can't possibly be accepted as true...Not so long as the surrounding evidence remains inerrant, and nothing within the Book contradicts itself.

To demonstrate a competent understanding of the objections levied against your argument,

I understand the objections have transformed and then contradicted themselves. First the definition for unfalsifiable was any claim that did not have direct evidence. Then the claim was that the Bible is unfalsifiable, and was compared to fire-breathing dragons. Then the claim was reduced to only parts of the Bible are unfalsifiable, and comparable to fire-breathing dragons. Then the definition of unfalsifiable was changed, in order to agree with courts of law, that any evidence direct or indirect, makes the claim falsifiable and accepted into a court of law. Then it was back tracked with some quasi-version of the first and second definitions, that is more complicated and less understood then either...

please provide a direct response to each of the following requests:

1. In your own words, accurately describe the problem of Underdetermination and its impact on the role of evidence.

2. In your own words, elucidate why the Verification Principle was ultimately abandoned as a criterion of meaning.

3. In your own words, explain the Principle of Falsifiability and how it functions to resolve the problems of Induction and Demarcation.

4. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Fallacy of Composition.

5. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the False Equivalence Fallacy.

6. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Appeal to Common Belief Fallacy.

7. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Affirming a Disjunct Fallacy.

Note: Any response submitted to this post that does not directly address those specific requests will be justifiably dismissed as irrelevant and signal your concession of the debate. If you do not agree to these terms, then simply withhold from submitting a response.

Not interested at this time. Perhaps in the future. In the meantime, the argument has been concluded on unfalsifiable vs falsifiable. Once again, I acknowledge applying unfalsifiability to the Bible is a uniquely deceptive way of calling either all or part of the Bible myth and fables, that are worthy to be compared with fire-breathing dragons.

At the outset I was going along at least in part. Now, I understand that none of the Bible is unfalsifiable. All the Bible is falsifiable by virtue of all the indirect evidence, that surrounds the testimonies of the God and Author. The whole Book can therefore be accepted into a court of law, for any juror to pass a judgment of believability.

The argument is of Bible believability, not proving anyone must believe. Believability is based upon reasonable review of all the evidence at hand. I believe it all. If anyone can prove any record of the Bible is false, or contradicts itself, then my faith becomes more ideologically blind, than intelligently concluded.

[RBD]

You need to learn the difference between taxonomic rankings of animals, and taxonomic classes of animals: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, and Invertebrates.

I refer to classes for simplicity when debating proven intraspecies evolution within a class, vs unproven new species evolution between classes.

You're still doing the same things, namely misusing terms and repeatedly posting complete nonsense.

There is a world of difference between intraspecies evolution, such as among primates, and a whole new class of species separate from the others.

You're either a layman of evolutionary science, that doesn't know the difference. Or, an ideologue that doesn't acknowledge the difference. Or, perhaps I haven't been clear enough. (If so, and you still don't understand, then the 2nd option is most likely)

While there are skeletal and biological similarities between animal classes, there is no proven evolution from one to the other. Any reasonable laymen and accept the former, but only pseudo-scientific ideologues declare the latter is proven beyond doubt.

In any case, the case for proving forensic common ancestry, is a failure. It's only another example of similarities, that never prove to be a positive match. And no parent nor genealogical ancestor is found the human family tree.

No one will ever go to court with a forensic match of a parental primate of a human babe. Nor will any genealogical search produce a great ape in a person's ancestral line...

Sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to believe anything you post given that you offer no support for any of it other than your own say-so.

Sorry, but I don't care. If you simply rule it all nonsense, without attempting to show why, then why should I care? I only argue facts and evidence with reasonable judgment, not ideologies.

Your fine dissertation on 'Alu' simply comes up short, on matching any human being with any animal in the past nor present. It's just another scientific display of similarity and circumstantial evidence to pile on the rest. It no doubt can convince some people to conclude it's proven enough for them. Perhaps even enough to form a quorum of popular consensus. But not for me, nor any other objective skeptic, that demands a whole match between humans and any animal, in order to finally prove the theoretic claim of primate-human evolution, and humans are animals...

[Jose Fly]

There is a world of difference between intraspecies evolution, such as among primates, and a while new class of species separate from the others.

No there's not. There's just speciation. New taxonomic classes are only established in hindsight after many speciation events. You're basically repeating the same old ignorant "but it's not a cat giving birth to a dog" mantra (it's actually worse, as yours would be "but it's not a flatworm giving birth to a whale").

You're either a layman of evolutionary science, that doesn't know the difference. Or, an ideologue that doesn't acknowledge the difference. Or, perhaps I haven't been clear enough. (If so, and you still don't understand, then the 2nd option is most likely)

I'm a biologist with over 30 years experience, so you know what you can do with that nonsense.

Sorry, but I don't care. If you simply rule it all nonsense, without attempting to show why, then why should I care? I only argue facts and evidence with reasonable judgment, not ideologies.

You haven't presented a single fact, nor have you supported a single thing you've claimed with a reference or citation. All you've offered is your empty say-so (coupled with astounding ignorance), which is the equivalent of some random person claiming "the moon is made of cheese" and thinking that alone is sufficient to establish that the moon is indeed, made of cheese.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to RBD in post #345]

Your response is dismissed for being irrelevant and intellectually dishonest. By failing to respond directly to the clearly stated requests, you've conceded the debate in accordance with the terms established in my previous post. This debate is now concluded.

Note: Intellectual dishonesty, even when committed in defense of Christianity, is still sinful in the eyes of the god you believe in.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #344]

....you say, as you dismiss the entire body of biological and paleontological evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial"

Correct. All indirect similarities, without a positive match past nor present.

How exactly are you defining a "positive match"? Are you asserting that every evolutionary ancestor of humans had to be 100% human in order to be an ancestor of humans?


and assert that a plant-covered Earth must have existed before the sun because a supposedly inerrant Bible verse says so.

Assert could have existed without contradicting science. Also note plants existing by artificial light. Which you ignore.

How much plant growth does science tell us can take place in one day (Genesis 1:11-13)?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #341]

If you were any real human evolutionist, you should object to pseudo-creationists trying to redefine evolution into creation. I'm a real creationist. I don't allow creationism to be redefined into evolution.

I appreciate when someone broadens their thinking enough to accept the visible evidence of an evolutionary universe.

The Bible doesn't need any advantage. The Book is what it is as written. People either believe it, and learn things of life accordingly, or they can go believe something else more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

Or they can believe the Bible because it is more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.


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

Sure. Jehovah is the eternal patriarchal Monarch. Therefore, it's only natural to emulate His rule.

Circular argument.

And special pleading.

Jer 25:9

Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations......

.....it's only natural to do the things instructed in the Bible. What's unnatural is people choosing to do things against common sense, such as believing, declaring, and acting like humans are only animals.

Show me one group of animals which has ever engaged in a deliberate war of extermination against a neighboring group of animals.