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]

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.

Nothing originates via evolution, unless origin is kept narrowly defined to something generated by something else. And excludes it' meaning of new beginning and existence.

Origin of species therefore must account for origin of life.

If you want to stick with speciation after life on earth, and avoid origin of species, then so be it. However, you must still account for when the original primate becomes human. Especially if you are using the exacting standard of language evolution, that has an ongoing verifiable transition from one to the other, without any noticeable gaps in between.

The large gaps between primates and humans, demands more proof to fill them as closely as Latin to Italian, which no one can reasonably deny is an evolution of man's language on earth.

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.

No problem. We'll stay away from Marx's claim of origin of species by evolution. I would want to go there either, if I were trying to believe in evolution without creation.

And so, we'll agree in origin of life on earth by creation, with the evolution of species following. Since you don't 'care' about how life originated and began on earth in the first place...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #470]

Just because human language evolves from among humans, does not at all mean humans evolve from among primates. The premise itself disannuls the analogy, since primate have no human language to evolve with.

Snakes have no human language, so there couldn't have been a conversation between Eve and a snake.

....or did Eve speak a snake language?

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^

[Clownboat]

This would be a lot easier if we could force you to learn. Here I'll give it the old college try again. In science, things are not proven (only laws) and instead are falsifiable.

Ok then. You acknowledge primate human evolution is only an unproven theory. It remains falsifiable, in that it's also not disproven.

There you go again with proof!
The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the life we see not just now, but also in the fossil record. The theory is falsifiable and so far has yet to be falsified and has even used to make predictions that have been confirmed.

Then why do you state as fact, that humans are primates evolving with one another?

Shard traits, chromosomes, DNA and retro viruses confirm this and the theory of evolution is the best explanation to describe the mechanism as to how it happened.

Why do you object to the simple statement that human primate evolution is not proven science, but only remains falsifiable theory?

Do to the fact that even when scientists have lots of very strong evidence, they rarely claim to have found proof because proof is absolute. To prove something means there is no chance another explanation exists. This is religious thinking and doesn't belong in science. The theory of evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow after all, but until that were to happen, it remains the best explanation for what we see, it has evidence, can make predictions and is open to being shown to be incorrect.

For anyone that desires absolute proof about how humans came about, there are plenty of religious options for them. For me, I'm good with accepting the best explanation we have until a better one is provided.

I never said human primate evolution is scientifically disproved, and can't ever be possibly be proven true in the future.

Thank goodness, as that would be unwise claims to make.

I only object to ideologues falsely stating it as fact, as though it were already proven, and not only a continuing falsifiable theory, that is yet to be disproven.

If you were to punch yourself in the face each time you began to type the word 'proof' or 'proven' when discussing science, do you think that would help to avoid using such thinking here? It's doing you a disservice.

It is a fact that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the life we see now and also in the fossil record. DNA, retro viruses, chromosomes and the fossil record all confirm it in place of suggesting it is an incorrect explanation. Therefore it is accepted until something better is offered. Considering it proven would not allow alternatives and that is not how the scientific method works (things need to be falsifiable), that is how religious thinking works (claims are considered proven and cannot be questioned).

Do you reject germ theory?
Do you reject the theory of gravity?

Are you saying germs and gravity are not proven scientific fact? That they are only falsifiable theories?

No, as I didn't 'say' and instead I 'asked'. I asked you if you reject either of these theories, like you seem the theory of evolution, for not being proven and only being a theory. I was checking for consistency and it seems you would like to avoid being shown to be inconsistent by answering my questions so you instead dodged by asking me questions instead sadly.

There may not be germs and gravity at all, except proven in the future?

This would be one of those times you could have punched yourself in the face.
Germs and gravity are real. We have theories explaining how these things operate.
Evolution is also real and we have a theory that explains how it operates.

If we were to say that the theory of evolution is proven, then there would be no falsifying it and no better explanation accepted if one ever comes up. This is bad reasoning and is avoided in science. Religious thinking is a mechanism for not allowing other explanations and is poor reasoning that should be avoided IMO.

What you've done is confuse scientific theories about factual things, with falsifiable theories for unproven things. There are theories about why and how gravity is and works, which may or may not be true, but gravity is not a scientific theory in need of proof. Primate human evolution is a scientific theory still needing proof, and so is not yet a proven fact like germs and gravity.

It will hurt (punching yourself), but you must find some way to stop yourself from thinking religiously when using the scientific method. Again, a holy book is enough proof for you for you to know how the universe and life came about. I acknowledge this about you. You are now not open to other explanations and you are now trying to saddle the scientific method with your poor reasoning (proofs).

If you think that the science about germs and gravity, is the same as the science for primate human evolution, then it's because your 'humans are animals' ideology blinds you to the difference between proven scientific fact, and unproven scientific theory.

More punching is needed sadly. You must remove your religious thinking or you will forever be doing science incorrectly.
Please define how you are using ideology. I fear you are projecting...

Germs and gravity were factual existence, before being shown how they work by science. Primate human evolution remains only a theory in need of scientific proof as a fact.

Germs, gravity and evolution are real factual things we can demonstrate. We have theories that are falsifiable that explain these factual things.
To put my religious thinking cap on in hopes to better relate to you (yes, I will have to punch myself in the face for it):
Germs, gravity and evolution are proven (ouch).
The theories that we have that best explain these things are not proven (ouch) and must be left open to better explanations if we ever discover any.
Germs are still real even if we amend our current theory about germs for a better one.
That populations change over time (evolution) is real, but the theory that explains what is happening must be left open for being shown to be incorrect (which is why I asking how you define ideology).

Stop saying humans are primates evolved from primates, and I'll stop asking for proof.

The reasons as to why humans are primates has been demonstrated. You need to stop thinking religiously and instead, if you feel there is a better explanation, then argue for it. All you are doing is asking for something (proof) that doesn't belong. Proof is for math and whiskey, not the scientific method.

Say humans may be primates, and I'll agree it remains a falsifiable scientific theory, that science does not yet disprove.

Humans are primates for the same reasons that all other primates are primates. You reject how this is demonstrated because you want something that doesn't and shouldn't exist (proof).
The fossil record suggest that humans are primates.
DNA suggests is.
Retroviruses suggest it.
Chromosomes suggest it.
This has been demonstrated to you already and your last bastion is to ask for proof. Science uses logic and reason, while you are using religious thinking (look, this book proves X, Y and Z).

No one asks for proof that there are germs and gravity. Anyone can say germs and gravity are a fact.

You are correct, because germs and gravity can be demonstrated.
Now do you reject germ theory because it is just a scientific theory?
Do you reject gravitational theory because it is just a scientific theory?

True. For animal speciation on earth. Not true for origin of species on earth, nor primate-human evolution.

Please be honest with us. Do you believe that the theory of evolution addresses how life originated on this planet?

For ideological reasons, you are ignorant of the difference between scientifically proven things that do exist, germs and gravity, vs scientific theories that may exist if proven.

Our readers will determine who they think is ignorant, who is confused about proofs and what scientific theories are, not you thankfully.

Or, do you still believe the scientific theory of primate human evolution, is as scientifically factual as germs and gravity?

No! You screwed up again! The theory of evolution is as scientifically factual (to use your words) as germ theory and the theory of gravity. Not as factual as real germs though. Are you seriously confused between the difference between an actual germ and a scientific theory?
Do you also reject those theories, or is there no need as they don't get in the way of preconceived religious beliefs, so only the theory of evolution needs to be incorrect?

If so, prove it.

You're embarrassing yourself again. Prove gravitational theory or I'll reject it! See what I did there?

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.

Exactly, but only people wake up speaking human language.

You can't say 'exactly' (alluding to understanding how languages evolve) and then say something so meaningless sense human language would be just one form of primate language. Please explain to the class what you believe you demonstrated.

There is no issue with evolving human language, being used as an example of gradual 'speciation', that provides exact changes in time. However, there's a big issue with the gaping difference between the fact of human language evolution, that is confined solely to humans, vs theoretical human primate evolution, that finds no exact transition between humans and primates.

Let's test for this shall we. Please outline the big issue you claim is there for us to examine.

Like germs and gravity, human language evolution is a fact. Human primate evolution is not a proven fact, but only an unproven theory.

I acknowledge that you reject something you are referring to as human primate evolution theory.
You can reject germ theory as well and that also will not have any effect on germs.

Just because human language evolves from among humans, does not at all mean humans evolve from among primates. The premise itself disannuls the analogy, since primate have no human language to evolve with.

You missed the point.
How human language evolved is much like how populations of animals change over time. I'm trying to explain actual evolution to you and this is the best layman real life example I can think of.
If you can understand that no one woke up one morning speaking Spanish, perhaps you can begin to understand how changes in populations come about.

Does the evolution of human dress and boat making, therefore mean that humans and primates evolved together? Of course not.

What a silly strawman! Who suggested such a thing?

The process of evolution itself does not mean separately evolving things must evolve together.

What a silly strawman! Who suggested such a thing?

And as with human language, primates don't dress nor make boats.

Such meaningless words! To demonstrate just how meaningless they are, even if primates dressed in clothes and made boats you would still reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons.

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.

Agreed. You're doing good in showing the process of evolution,

That is because that populations change over time (evolution) is as real as germs and gravity. I'm glad to hear that the language analogy might be helping your understanding of the theory of evolution.

not in proving any evolution between humans and primates. Just because the process of evolution is the same, doesn't mean there's evolution between the two.

Correct! It only suggests such a thing, like DNA, fossils, retro viruses and chromosomes. All these things suggest that humans are primates. If you want to claim proof, you will need to stick with religious claims. Those ideologies cannot be challenged, unlike scientific findings.

[Clownboat]

However, you must still account for when the original primate becomes human.

As soon as you show me the date that Latin became Spanish and Italian.
Both of these processes took time and there was never a time we could to point to Latin to say, today, it is now Spanish. Latin slowly evolved to become Spanish and Italian (and others). Primates evolved into the primates we now see today and it didn't happen overnight either, therefore there is no 'when' for you to request.

Question for you:
How do you explain Neanderthals and the fact that most humans have some Neanderthal DNA in them?

Especially if you are using the exacting standard of language evolution, that has an ongoing verifiable transition from one to the other, without any noticeable gaps in between.

That is why I choose language evolution with you. A concept you can more easily grasp I would assume. Once you understand how languages evolved, evolution won't be so confusing.

The large gaps between primates and humans, demands more proof to fill them as closely as Latin to Italian, which no one can reasonably deny is an evolution of man's language on earth.

Again with proof! You must stop making unreasonable requests.
The gaps between primate and humans are not as large as you might think and you could in fact incorrectly argue that Latin didn't become Italian. You would just be wrong of course.

And so, we'll agree in origin of life on earth by creation,

I am willing to do grant such a thing if it will help you to stay focused on evolution (not abiogenesis). For the sake of debate, let's pretend that your preferred god concept created life on this planet. Details shouldn't matter. Hopefully we can stay focused on the evolution of species now.

For example, how did we get from 2 pair of beetle to over 400,000 in around 6,000 years? I would love to gain an understanding on this super accelerated form of evolution that must have taken place.

Since you don't 'care' about how life originated and began on earth in the first place...

Correct. How life originated has nothing to do with how life (populations) changes over time. Pretend that Allah or aliens started life if you would like, it matters not when discussing what followed.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #470]

Just because human language evolves from among humans, does not at all mean humans evolve from among primates. The premise itself disannuls the analogy, since primate have no human language to evolve with.

Snakes have no human language, so there couldn't have been a conversation between Eve and a snake.

....or did Eve speak a snake language?

I've answered this elsewhere. The Bible later speaks of that old serpent as the fallen angel Lucifer. The beast did not become a belly-crawling nonspeaking snake, until after the Lord judged him.

The Bible speaks of animals being possessed by spiritual beings to speak with human language. A better example is the donkey talking by the Spirit of the Lord to the mad prophet.

Such things whether believed or not, have nothing to do with the natural fact, that talking separates humans from all animals.

And of course, your original analogy was good for the speciation process, but does nothing to prove primate-human evolution. No more than the evolution of human dress and boat-making, which also separates us from all animals.

This is another example of how you avoid challenges by diversion. My own objective honesty is proved by at least trying to answer every single challenge.

[RBD]

The alternative to evolution

Actually, origin of species by evolution is the relatively modern alternative to origin by creation.

is your embarrassing Creation narratives where Adam and Eve had 3 sons, Cain, Able, and Seth.

Had three sons we know of by record. How many daughters is not known either.

Some speculate mother-son incest. The more reasonable conclusion is sons and daughters marrying. Such marriages were not forbidden by law until Moses.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #477]

I've answered this elsewhere. The Bible later speaks of that old serpent as the fallen angel Lucifer. The beast did not become a belly-crawling nonspeaking snake, until after the Lord judged him.

So you believe that serpents crawl because of judgement?

The Bible speaks of animals being possessed by spiritual beings to speak with human language. A better example is the donkey talking by the Spirit of the Lord to the mad prophet.

Such things whether believed or not, have nothing to do with the natural fact, that talking separates humans from all animals.

Such things have nothing to do with the scientific process, since we have only sectarian dogma and no evidence to establish that they happened.

This is another example of how you avoid challenges by diversion. My own objective honesty is proved by at least trying to answer every single challenge.

This is another example of you trying to answer every single challenge by quoting Bible verses at it instead of presenting evidence.

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^