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]

The Bible timeline I argue is only for 'young' humans, animals, and present plant life on earth, that begins after Gen 1:3. The argument is not about the age of the universe and the earth.

Okay. Aside from reading the Bible, where exactly do you get your information that humans are so 'young'? I would really like to know?

As said. By genealogy and historical records verified in the Bible.

And if Cheddar man is indeed proven 9000 years old, then the Bible timeline by genealogy is not complete. It doesn't mean the genealogical record is false.

Nor does it mean the Bible gives an incorrect timeline, since the Bible never gives a specific date of years between Gen 1 and the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[POI]

The Bible timeline I argue is only for 'young' humans, animals, and present plant life on earth, that begins after Gen 1:3. The argument is not about the age of the universe and the earth.

Okay. Aside from reading the Bible, where exactly do you get your information that humans are so 'young'? I would really like to know?

As said. By genealogy and historical records verified in the Bible.

And if Cheddar man is indeed proven 9000 years old, then the Bible timeline by genealogy is not complete. It doesn't mean the genealogical record is false.

Nor does it mean the Bible gives an incorrect timeline, since the Bible never gives a specific date of years between Gen 1 and the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I asked, aside from reading the Bible, where? When you say "genealogy and historical records", from where are you exploring these topics exactly? Can you cite your source(s) please?

[POI]

Keeping this as a sticky, on the top, until you finally address it:

In honor of posts 149 and 358, the meat and potatoes of our exchange has been perpetually avoided.

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral acts.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. Genesis 1 is incorrect.

If you want to show where my definitions are wrong, then quote show specifically where and how.

But I already have, and you do not adjust.

Case/point, there exists no term labelled "new speciation".

I've responded already.

Anyone can issue a "response". But your response does not challenge my position. This is why I keep asking, using differing tactics and methods, in hopes you will see the error of your ways. In essence, you are outright making up your own stuff, which does not comport with 'science.' In essence, you continue in a strawman.

A distinction without a difference. Otherwise, speciation doesn't include new species.

Yet again.... (Speciation) is defined as the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. It occurs when a group within a species separates from other members and develops unique characteristics, leading to reproductive isolation and the formation of a new species.

There are a few types of speciation, and "new speciation" is NOT one of them, as it is just a redundant term. Which one would you like to challenge or engage? I already offered the types, but you keep ignoring them, in favor of your made up one.

And answered this enough times.

Same as above. Anyone can ' answer'. But this does not actually mean you answered. Strawman rebuttals carry no weight.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]


RBD,

Relative to the Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, where they both contradict each other,

Relative to the Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, where they don't contradict each other.

then barring this biblical axiom, I have to ask you the following biblical questions relative to Jesus' creation stories as God:


1. Then God said, And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, Jesus as god created Adam form earthly dust (Genesis 2:7) Then since your Jewish gods are in a plural form of "us," they said Adam will resemble them.

Your false rendering of Gen 2 leads to a false interpretation of Gen 1: God did not create man from the dust in His image, but from the soul breathed by the Spirit of life.

God's image is not physical but spiritual. Jesus Christ came in the flesh of man, in our image and likeness...

Therefore, since Adam had a penis to procreate his Jewish god's creation, then like Adam, Jesus as God and the other God of mention in his "us" form in heaven, where these Gods have a PENIS, urinates, and shytes in resembling Adam in having to do the same!.... What?

Hence, your satirical reference to pagan anthropomorphized gods and goddesses.

Jesus coming in the flesh of man, came with all the body parts and functions of our physical bodies. The throne of God in heaven is not a toilet seat. And like the angels, resurrected men and women like Jesus Christ, will not have sex and procreate.

2. Have you ever thought why the Jewish God Jesus

God is not a Jew. Jesus was a Jew in the flesh, including circumcised on the 8th day by law. The resurrected Jesus Christ is neither Jew nor Greek...

had to create a 93 billion light years in diameter universe to begin with,

He didn't have to, but loves to:

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

where at one time, Jesus as God literally stopped the sun from moving from around the earth (Joshua 10:12-13) so the Israelites could have more day time to defeat their enemies? This notion obviously implies that the earth is either the center of the universe as it was thought in biblical times, or the sun rotated around the earth along with all visual stars.

The sun standing still does not at all have to mean it was revolving around the earth. That's an obviously biased conclusion.

Do you accept this biblical fact shown above today, and if not, why not?

Of course. Faith in the all power Creator of heaven and earth, has no problem with Him keeping the heaven and earth in tact, while keep the earth still, so that the sun continues shining in one place.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power...

Afterall, it's the sun that stands still, with the planets moving around it.

We also see how Jesus Christ was the image of God by the Spirit, who came in the image of man by the flesh.

Jesus as God created a helpmate for Adam by FIRST creating all of the animals that are existing today (8.7 million different species), whereas Adam was created with a male anatomy, and so were the animals, therefore God set up Adam to have sex with said animals for procreation! Huh?

God doesn't tempt man with sin, nor was Adam tempted to do so with animals.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

"God created me this way." Is a modern cop-out lie and false accusation against God. So is, "The devil made me do it."

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man (Adam) called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

The godly verse above obviously did not include all the insects and fish, etc., that God had to create as well, whoops!

Each living creature includes all the rest. An author doesn't have to itemize everything, every time he writes about the same subject, just to please the fault finders.

Question, do you think that your God took a rib from the 8.7 million different male animals to create the female animals of said specie like he had to do with Adam?

Since He specifically says He did with Adam, and not with any animal on earth, then no. Nor does the Bible say He had to, just as He doesn't have to create anything, but rather loves to.

And since, man and woman marry to become one flesh, unlike the animals, then taking the rib of Adam for the woman is entirely practical, appropriate, and loyally possessive.

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Thanks for Bible challenges. Helps prove Bible inerrancy and wholesomeness.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #438]

What I cited shows that baboon language is far more complex than "babbling".

Complex? They look and sound pretty simple to me.

Are you a zoologist? How in-depth is your study of baboons?

What makes your knowledge of baboons the standard?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #439]

Gen 1 never forbids people eating meat, only that plants and fruits are (also) given for food. Meat eaters can also eat salads.

If I remember correctly, plants and fruits are the only things identified as food for humans in Genesis 1.

I guess that also means the animals were free to eat humans.

Also, the fact that humans eat every kind of animal meat on earth, mammals, birds, fish, and insects, shows again a separation of people from all animals.

.....every kind of animal----until some animals became unclean......and then, in Christian theology, became clean again....

If humans ate animals in the Garden, then it logically follows that animals ate each other in the Garden----which would have made the Garden of Eden a bloody, violent place right off the bat.

[RBD]

The Bible timeline I argue is only for 'young' humans, animals, and present plant life on earth, that begins after Gen 1:3. The argument is not about the age of the universe and the earth.

Okay. Aside from reading the Bible, where exactly do you get your information that humans are so 'young'? I would really like to know?

As said. By genealogy and historical records verified in the Bible.

And if Cheddar man is indeed proven 9000 years old, then the Bible timeline by genealogy is not complete. It doesn't mean the genealogical record is false.

Nor does it mean the Bible gives an incorrect timeline, since the Bible never gives a specific date of years between Gen 1 and the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I asked, aside from reading the Bible, where? When you say "genealogy and historical records", from where are you exploring these topics exactly? Can you cite your source(s) please?

I see. The oldest known civilization is in Mesopotamia about 8000-6000 years.

That's mankind, not animal. Animals don't have civilizations. They're not human.

[RBD]

Yet again.... (Speciation) is defined as the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. It occurs when a group within a species separates from other members and develops unique characteristics, leading to reproductive isolation and the formation of a new species.

This is the proven evolution of species within it's own class. With primates there have evolved new species of primates, that no longer interbreed, but they remain within the class of primates.

The evolution that is not proven, but only theorized is where an old class of species evolves into a whole new class, as with fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds, etc...That is the origin of species by evolution, that is not proven.

Evolution of species is not objectionable. Origin of species by evolution is the objection. By definition nothing can originate by evolution, but only by creation. Evolution demands there always be previous matter and life, in order to evolve into different matter and life.

Marx advanced the science of evolution of the species. His title, Origin of species, is a false ideological challenge to origin by creation.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #438]

What I cited shows that baboon language is far more complex than "babbling".

Complex? They look and sound pretty simple to me.

Are you a zoologist? How in-depth is your study of baboons?

What makes your knowledge of baboons the standard?

I've watched enough Tarzan movies. But then, that's chimps and gorillas. But still, baboons can't be that different.

And I've never seen any of them talk, nor write, nor debate, nor legislate, nor speculate, nor theorize, nor ponder the heavens and the earth and all that is therein...I.e. only humans are spiritually intelligent, self-aware, and believe or disbelieve. Humans aren't animals, and animals aren't people.

However, humans do have natural bodies like all living creatures on the earth, with physical and biological similarities to certain species of animals. That much is true.

The 'humans are animals' ideologues need to stick to physical and biological similarities, rather than the ideological indoctrination that disavows what makes humans people, and animals only animal.

[Clownboat]

This poster was asked to provide their sources. This is the reply we got...

I see. The oldest known civilization is in Mesopotamia about 8000-6000 years.

Closer to 10,000 years actually and that doesn't account for all the centuries that humans were hunter gatherers before forming civilizations. Before this time, the worlds population still lived in small, nomadic hunter-gatherer bands, continuing practices from the Paleolithic period.
To only allude to civilizations and not humans as a whole is dishonest and only serves to protect preconceived religious beliefs. We are not children though and see the dishonesty for what it is.

I acknowledge that this poster doesn't want to consider the entire picture because they have religious beliefs to protect.

That's mankind, not animal. Animals don't have civilizations. They're not human.

As this poster has learned, humans are animals (the specifics have been provided many times now). I acknowledge that they reject this for religious reasons. Those not saddled with preconceived religious beliefs are able to follow the evidence where it leads. I acknowledge that this poster is not allowed to follow the evidence, so they just flat out reject it. You know, like what a good Muslim would do.