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]

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.

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.

Hmm? So basically, what you are saying here is that any findings not directly associated with a located civilization means the findings is of an animal?

[RBD]

[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.

If I remember correctly, the Bible forbids making private interpretations out of Scripture, and then preaching them as Scripture.

Such as:
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it only shall be for meat.

The same goes for any objectively critical book review. Ideologues always insert their own personal stuff into what others say. They can't help themselves from imposing their ideology on everyone else. I believe it's because of personal insecurity issues. Ideologues need everyone to agree with them, because what they believe doesn't stand on it's own right.

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

I suppose. But after the Lord slew one, and skinned it to make proper clothes for Adam and Eve, then it pretty much showed what He meant by man having dominion over them.

Which is another example of how humans are separated from all animals: Only man dominates all animals, and even eats most all of them, including the creepy ones.

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....

Religion of course being another separation between man and all animals on earth. We can even choose which ones to eat or not religiously.

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.

Which makes a foolish conclusion out of a false supposition. There's no record of any man or woman eating any animal in the garden of Eden.

[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.

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.

This response sounds swell, but it is one you have made up. The definition you quoted from me was not made up by me. I can understand why the term 'primate' bothers you so dang much, but the fact of the matter is Homo sapiens are merely another species of the "primate" class. I know you really want to think we are that special, because your beloved Bible book says so, but I'm afraid Gen 1 got this one a little wrong:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... 0relatives.

and:

https://australian.museum/learn/science ... -primates/

Homo sapiens (modern humans) are a species within the primate class. In fact, humans are considered one of the approximately 400 extant species that belong to the order Primates. More specifically, Homo sapiens are classified as great apes within the family Hominidae, which also includes chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. While humans share a common ape ancestor with these species, we evolved separately and are not descended from any of the apes living today.

[RBD]

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.

This is not proven, but only traditional. Human civilisation has always had hunter-gatherers. Neither excludes the other.

But, the 8000-6000 time frame is a concession to the possibility, that the Bible genealogies may be incomplete. Which doesn't make the recorded ones erroneous, nor the Bible incorrect.

The Bible never gives a number of years between Adam and Abraham. The first time a number of years is given, that is more than a lifespan, is 430 years between Jacob in Egypt, and the Hebrew Exodus back to Canaan.

[Clownboat]

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.

https://australian.museum/learn/science ... -primates/
"Humans are primates"

The evolution that is not proven, but only theorized is where an old class of species evolves into a whole new class

This would be a lot easier if we could force you to learn. Here I'll give it the old college try again.
Proof, is for math and whiskey. In science, things are not proven (only laws) and instead are falsifiable. You obviously lack the appreciation for what it takes for something to become a theory and fail to see the 'silly' in your own words, but to give you a clue...
Do you reject germ theory? (I assume you would if you were trying to protect a preconceived religious belief).
Do you reject the theory of gravity? (I assume you would if you were trying to protect a preconceived religious belief).

as with fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds, etc...That is the origin of species by evolution, that is not proven.

See! If only I could force you to learn, you would stop making such silly mistakes like asking for proof. The theory of evolution is falsifiable and to this day, has not been falsified and is therefore the best explanation available. You reject the best explanation for religious reasons, not for real reasons though.

Evolution of species is not objectionable. Origin of species by evolution is the objection.

This doesn't compute. Let me explain by using language in place of evolution.

As you should know, Latin is a dead language. However, many current languages evolved over time from Latin.
You would then have no problem (if you are consistent) with languages evolving, but would take issue with finding the exact year that Latin became what we now consider Spanish or Italian. It changed over time though. It's not like one person woke up speaking Spanish. The changes took time and affected different populations differently (Latin becoming both Spanish and Italian for example). New species, like new languages, originated from previous iterations that had changes within the population over time. Languages evolving within different populations is the best layman example for how evolution takes place that I can think of and explains nicely how new species/languages come to be.

By definition nothing can originate by evolution, but only by creation.

New species have originated via evolution and so have new languages as you have just learned.

Evolution demands there always be previous matter and life, in order to evolve into different matter and life.

This is correct! Evolution doesn't care how life began on this planet. When discussing evolution in debate, I would suggest that you pretend that your god concept created life (as it matters not to us as to how life began because we are discussing evolution) and then move on to discuss evolution.

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

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "When discussing evolution in debate, I would suggest that you pretend that your god concept created life (as it matters not to us as to how life began because we are discussing evolution) and then move on to discuss evolution."

[Clownboat]

This is not proven, but only traditional. Human civilisation has always had hunter-gatherers. Neither excludes the other.

Again, proof is for math and whiskey. However, it is known that humans were hunter gatherers. Feel free to reject what we know in order to maintain a preconceived religious belief.

But, the 8000-6000 time frame is a concession to the possibility, that the Bible genealogies may be incomplete.

Possibly incomplete!?! The Bible isn't even an authority!

Which doesn't make the recorded ones erroneous, nor the Bible incorrect.

Just because humans are animals doesn't mean your reading of your preferred holy book is incorrect.

The Bible never gives a number of years between Adam and Abraham.

That's OK, at least is says that no man with crushed testicles can access heaven, or that a snake and donkey spoke, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, or that the bodies of dead saints got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem.

The first time a number of years is given, that is more than a lifespan, is 430 years between Jacob in Egypt, and the Hebrew Exodus back to Canaan.

What this has to do with humans civilizations being around for about 10,000 years or that we were hunter gatherers before that time is lost on me. If we are doing the method of science, why would the Bible even enter the equation?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #449]

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.

The biblical literalism ideologues need to stop dismissing the evidence of human evolution as "ideology".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #452]

Religion of course being another separation between man and all animals on earth. We can even choose which ones to eat or not religiously.

The same animals going back and forth between clean and unclean happens in your supposedly inerrant Bible.


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.

Which makes a foolish conclusion out of a false supposition. There's no record of any man or woman eating any animal in the garden of Eden.

Then when did we get our canine teeth??


And you never have addressed how you know that the goddess Nu Kua didn't fashion the first humans from clay.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #437]

In other words, they've ceased to demand direct evidence, and declare it true by circumstantial evidence alone. It applies to people acting by their faith, and juries making verdicts.

Give us direct evidence that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece of fruit is the reason we all wear clothes.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]


RBD,

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

RBD, you LIED in your statement herewith where there are contradictions in the Creation Narratives as shown below: "Relative to the Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, where they don't contradict each other."


1. Contradicting order of creation in Genesis chapter one and two:

Genesis 1: Plants are created on day 3, animals on days 5 and 6, and humans, male and female together on day 6.

Genesis 2: Adam is created first, then plants and animals, and then Eve was created.


2. Contradicting creation order of man and woman in Genesis one and two:

Genesis 1: The serial killer Jesus as god creates man and woman together in his image.

Genesis 2: Adam is created first, then the animals, and finally Eve from Adams rib.


3. Your God in totally being dumbfounded in the creation narratives:

Genesis 1: Vegetation is created before the sun and stars, HUH?!!!

Genesis 2: This text mentions a time before plants existed, therefore implying a different order from Jesus as god in being dumbfounded again!



RBD, be very careful in your posts to me showing yourself to be an outright LIER for Satan! This is because your Jesus as the Jewish God of your faith will send you to the sulfur lakes of HELL upon your demise as the inspired by Jesus verse shows below:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIERS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)




.