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]

I consistently demand one simple thing: An actual complete 100% match between any human and any animal at any time on earth.

That's idiotic. If they were 100% the same, they'd be the same individual (I'm not even a 100% match with my brothers). Duh.

So you have brothers that can't be matched as human? Is this a case where humans really primates, but they are not humans? Or, are they the sons of Gath?

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

I already did.

You gave an 'alu' number that was unique only to humans. Humans are uniquely humans, and animals are not uniquely humans. (And the sons of Gath were very large, but still humans, not primates.)

[Jose Fly]

So you have brothers that can't be matched as human? Is this a case where humans really primates, but they are not humans? Or, are they the sons of Gath?

You're still not making any sense at all.

You gave an 'alu' number that was unique only to humans.

You either didn't understand or didn't even read what I posted. The ALU sequences are shared by humans and other primates in the same locations, which is the same technique used in courts to establish relatedness.

[RBD]

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".

And humans with different blood types do not transfuse successfully, but they are all still humans. And why no animal at all can successfully transfuse to give life to any human, and vica versa.

Human blood is not animal blood. Human seed is not animal seed. Human spiritual intelligence is not animal nature.

Neither spiritually nor biological is any human and animal. There is no direct evidence proving any present match, nor of common ancestry. Humans have always been human, not animal, and vica verse.

All of the physical, biological, and genetic similarities are scientifically proven and interesting, but they only show what all humans already know: Like all living flesh on earth, we also have mortal physical bodies to live in. But the human family is separately unmatched from the animal kingdom.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

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.

The problem with getting caught up in the weeds, is to lose site of the obvious fact of a case. I don't get ensnared in arguments about scientific similarities, since I only care about a direct match. No one can argue humans are like animals in a variety of ways, both internally and externally, but no intelligence nor science proves humans are animals, nor that humans are descended from animals...

Also, I find it very interesting, regarding your sustained hyper-skepticism pertaining to evolutionary biology.

After all the corrections on this kind of accusation, I can only conclude your ideological commitment blinds you to the difference between simple biological evolution vs unproven evolution from one class of species into another whole new class, that is now completely separate from the other classes.

Primates have proven to be evolved into many members of the primate species, but no proof is yet found for primates evolving from fish or birds, nor humans from primates, fish or birds...

The argument is not against evolution within a species, but only against origin of species by evolution. The transformation of species proven by Marx is not arguable. It's his leap to evolution for an explanation the origin of species, that is yet to be proven and remains ideologically set against origin of species by creation.

Anyone that does not acknowledge, the leap to origin of species by evolution, was a direct ideological alternative to creation, is either an ignorant laymen in evolutionary science. Or, is a committed ideologue, that over the past hundred or more years, doesn't even remember, or consider creation to be a possibility anymore.

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,

I'm sure there is, but if it's just more biological comparisons that never match, then it's just more of the same old comparison theories, that never prove humans are animals. People that seemingly try to bridge the gap between similarities and an actual match, as by sheer force of will alone, are engaging in ideological conspiracy theories.

Again, can we really know anything? It's a legitimate question. Is EVERYTHING faith based?

Fact is not faith based, except in the science that prove it. Anyone accepting objective math, can also know for a fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

However, similarities that never conclusively prove a theory, such as primate-human evolution, can only promote a belief in it, not know it for a fact. Objective skeptics can reasonably withhold accepting anything as fact, until conclusively proven. Once again, only ideological zeal would blind someone to the obvious options.

They so commit themselves to believing that primate-human evolution is proven, rather than only hinted at by physical similarities, that they don't even acknowledge a non-creationist skeptic can also withhold accepting origin of species by evolution.

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"?

First, where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin. Secondly, where a primate skeleton became human remains. Where human and animal blood ever matched. Where humans ever successfully bred with animals.

I.e. prove conclusively that humans are, or ever have been animals, and so animals became human beings.

And, once more, the ideological nature of the claim is still proven by the personal unwillingness to say animals are human beings too. Afterall, Gorillas are primates and not monkeys, nor orangutangs, and yet primates are gorillas. And so, if humans are primates, and not gorillas, monkeys, nor orangutangs, then why aren't primates humans...

Inconsistency based solely upon personal will, is ideologically motivated, not by consistent scientific fact and logical analysis.

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.

I appreciate the compliment, at least in being consistent to the text. However, once again, evolution itself is not a problem with Gen 1, so long as it keeps it's proven place. Biological evolution within a species is not forbidden by Gen 1, nor does it contradict Gen 1. It's only when the origin of species is theorized as by evolution, that it challenges Gen 1. Which is exactly what Marx and others knew they were doing, when they first extrapolated it from proven evolutionary biology.

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

However, you either 1) create a special standard for accepted evidence for evolution,

I don't created anything to accept proven biological evolution. The facts prove their own conclusion. And primate-human evolution creates it's own standard of facts, that must prove that primates became humans, and humans are primates.

And finally, how can a standard of proving a match, not just similarities, be so special, when the claim is of a match. It's the claim that is special in the first place.

If anyone wants to argue what's objectively and scientifically proven: That humans are physically like animals in many ways, they'll get no argument from me.

[RBD]

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.

Then, there's no point in me looking it up, other than for my own satisfaction.

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

You have no third option.

3rd option is from the 2nd: No species of animal is moral no immoral. Only humans are moral and immoral.

Still waiting for your own consistency: Can animals act immorally? Or, are only humans moral and immoral?

Or, do you choose the personal ideological option: Animals can act morally, but not immorally.

[Clownboat]

Human blood is not animal blood.

As you have learned, humans are in fact animals, primates specifically. Therefore, human blood is animal blood.
I acknowledge that you reject this established science and the reasons for it and remain unimpressed. You do you boo.

(Here is some meaningless scripture as far as debating goes... to take a page out of your book):
Psalm 14:1
If a fool can figure it out, what is your excuse?

[RBD]

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.

Then new speciation is not acceptable to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the difference between proven evolution within a class of species, vs unproven evolution between the classes.

You also appear to not even acknowledge that the classes of species have no present relation to one another in breeding nor proven ancestry.

New taxonomic classes are only established in hindsight after many speciation events.

True. Whether the events are by creation or by evolution remains to be proven. At least when it comes to origin of species, and whole new classes of species appearing on the earth, that are separate from those going before.

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").

More like, exactly when did once class of species give birth to another, such as a fish to an amphibian, reptile, or bird...Or, a primate to a human being...

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.

I don't doubt your biological expertise. It's only your evolutionary view of origin of species, that is either layman ignorant, or ideologically bent.

Many people think they must choose between evolution itself or Gen 1, when arguing primate-human evolution. That's a layman's error. Ideologues may know the difference, but want to keep the evolution that is proven, attached to the other kind of evolution, that's remains unproven. It's indoctrination 102 of conclusion by improper transference...

They do the same with the unproven Big Bang theory piggy-backing proven universal expansionism.

[Clownboat]

Then new speciation is not acceptable to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the difference between proven evolution within a class of species, vs unproven evolution from one class to another.

Please present the mechanism that better explains the life we see not just now, but also in the fossil record and please specifically account for the 400,000 species of beetle we now have on this planet. I would like to compare your mechanism to that of evolution.

I fear that you are rejecting the theory of evolution while arguing for a form of evolution (400,000 beetles from just two on an ark some 6,000 years ago) that would make actual biologists blush.

Much appreciated!

[RBD]

[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.

Is that for sure this time?

Note:Intellectual dishonesty, even when committed in defense of Christianity,

Christianity? Who's defending Christianity? Can't you separate religion from science? I try to argue what a Book says, as compared to objective evidence, as well as scientific fact vs theory. And some people keep veering off into religion. It just shows how ideologues are dominated by their own ideology.

is still sinful in the eyes of the god you believe in.[/i]

Are you trying to proselytize me to some god now? This intellectually honest god of yours, that hates sin. What's his/her name?

[POI]

And humans with different blood types do not transfuse successfully, but they are all still humans. And why no animal at all can successfully transfuse to give life to any human, and vica versa.

You don't like it when I have to repeat myself. I've done so, in the hopes that you grasp what I am actually saying. You clearly still aren't. Please allow me to explain in another way... 1) A homo sapien is one species. 2) A giraffe is one species. 3) A hippo is one species. For the most part, one species cannot give blood to other species. I already explained why. This not only means 1) cannot give blood to 2), but also, 2) cannot give blood to 3). Why? Because each species is unique, for the reason(s) I already informed you about. This means any species should tay in their own lane. This included ("animal" to "animal") transfusions. Kapeesh?

The problem with getting caught up in the weeds, is to lose site of the obvious fact of a case. I don't get ensnared in arguments about scientific similarities, since I only care about a direct match. No one can argue humans are like animals in a variety of ways, both internally and externally, but no intelligence nor science proves humans are animals, nor that humans are descended from animals...

This response further supports my prior response. In your case, a lack of complete understanding will keep you in the dark. Maybe this is deliberately done so to protecting/preserve your current position? It's not just about the identified fusion alone. This is only one link in the chain. The 4-minute video explains.

After all the corrections on this kind of accusation, I can only conclude your ideological commitment blinds you to the difference between simple biological evolution vs unproven evolution from one class of species into another whole new class, that is now completely separate from the other classes.

Primates have proven to be evolved into many members of the primate species, but no proof is yet found for primates evolving from fish or birds, nor humans from primates, fish or birds...

The argument is not against evolution within a species, but only against origin of species by evolution. The transformation of species proven by Marx is not arguable. It's his leap to evolution for an explanation the origin of species, that is yet to be proven and remains ideologically set against origin of species by creation.

Anyone that does not acknowledge, the leap to origin of species by evolution, was a direct ideological alternative to creation, is either an ignorant laymen in evolutionary science. Or, is a committed ideologue, that over the past hundred or more years, doesn't even remember, or consider creation to be a possibility anymore.

Right... And the way for you to combat this notion is to provide a big strawman argument, by misrepresenting evolutionary biology entirely. The things people do to protect their beloved ancient book....

I'm sure there is, but if it's just more biological comparisons that never match, then it's just more of the same old comparison theories, that never prove humans are animals. People that seemingly try to bridge the gap between similarities and an actual match, as by sheer force of will alone, are engaging in ideological conspiracy theories.

It's clear now that you do not know what evolutionary biology actually puts forth, which allows you to retain your 'skepticism.'

Fact is not faith based, except in the science that prove it. Anyone accepting objective math, can also know for a fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

However, similarities that never conclusively prove a theory, such as primate-human evolution, can only promote a belief in it, not know it for a fact. Objective skeptics can reasonably withhold accepting anything as fact, until conclusively proven. Once again, only ideological zeal would blind someone to the obvious options.

They so commit themselves to believing that primate-human evolution is proven, rather than only hinted at by physical similarities, that they don't even acknowledge a non-creationist skeptic can also withhold accepting origin of species by evolution.

Sinc your starting point is completely flawed; I do not even blame you for saying all of this, at this point.

First, where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin.

We already touched on this. I'll address it in next response. And as soon as you commit to the process in intellectual earnest, you will find yourself in a very precarious position.

Secondly, where a primate skeleton became human remains. Where human and animal blood ever matched. Where humans ever successfully bred with animals.

It is clear you do not understand how evolutionary biology works now. Again, until you actually understand common ancestry, speciation, the immune system, xenotransfusions, etc, you will continue in your strawman-ness.

I don't created anything to accept proven biological evolution. The facts prove their own conclusion. And primate-human evolution creates it's own standard of facts, that must prove that primates became humans, and humans are primates.

Based upon your given standard above, you have completely strawmnaned your way out of any 'proof'.

[POI]

3rd option is from the 2nd: No species of animal is moral no immoral. Only humans are moral and immoral.

Still waiting for your own consistency: Can animals act immorally? Or, are only humans moral and immoral?

Or, do you choose the personal ideological option: Animals can act morally, but not immorally.

This is not a new option. Again:

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. You stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes.

Conclusion: According to YOUR own given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How are you going to dig yourself out of this one?