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 #237]

Were they animals before their eyes were opened and they knew good and evil (Genesis 3:22)?

They knew the law of good and evil commanded them.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

True. The man, not the animal.

Psa 32:9
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding:

If you're going to Bible, then go by the Bible.

[RBD]

What's a biological way to distinguish a natural creature that isn't an animal, from one that is?

Blood separates all humans from all animals. Seed separates all humans from any species of animal.

That doesn't answer the question. If I have some blood, how do I tell if it's animal blood or not? You're the one that said the difference is biological, so what biological feature does one have that the other doesn't?

Google it already. If you're not going to accept something so easily verified, then I'm not taking the time to do it for you.

The blood separates the life of creatures, and the seed separates the kind of creature. Human blood and life is not animal, and humans are not an animal species. If you have any evidence or argument to counter the obvious, I'll be glad to listen.

I have learned over time, that it's often what's not said, that reveals the veracity and motives for what is said. No primate-human evolutionist that I know of, has ever addressed the complete separation between humans and animals by blood and seed.

All you people have is the usual scientific similarities about how reeeeeally close we are in DNA, Chromosomes, skeletal shape, physical appearance, etc... So close and yet so far away from any real match, that makes a human an animal, and vica versa.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #270]

If a whole new species is evolved from another, such as bird to reptile, then there would have to be past breeding between with the former, and only present breeding with the latter. If the creature were a bird, that never breed with reptiles, then it's not a new reptile, but only a bird. There was no new speciation, but only the same old species evolving with new characteristics.

As the reptilian ancestors of creatures such as Archaeopteryx evolved, they began to develop features which we recognize in modern birds. As the breeding went on, those avian features became more prominant as they were perpetuated in the offspring of the organisms which had those features. As their bodies became more avian, they separated from the breeding of their previous reptilian lineage. Result----birds.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This states that all new speciation is by creation, not by evolution. Evolution must prove, that a separate kind of species ever had common breeding ancestry with another. I.e. One kind of species, the bird, evolved into another whole class of species, the reptile.

Here you're claiming that scientific evidence has to "prove" itself but that a dogmatic statement of faith doesn't. That's backwards.

For the Archeopteryx to have evolved from bird to reptile

Here again you have it backwards. Archaeopteryx was evolving from reptile to bird.

We're talking about new speciation, not simple speciation.

We're talking about both. One is about the overall process, the other about specific mechanisms. The process and the mechanisms are related, because the mechanisms drive the process.

They are all new creaturesappearing on earth, that have no present interbreeding. If they evolved from one to the other, then common ancestry of breeding must be proven between one and the other.

Species don't have to be able to interbreed to have come from a common ancestor.

But that is not new speciation, where there is a whole new and separate class of species. That is never proven to by by evolution.

Are you trying to make the old "ain't never been no fish give birth to a monkey" argument?

New speciation evolution, especially from apes to man, appeals to the scientifically unproven process of ideology.

I believe I've made such comment before, but there's more scientific evidence of humans being primates than there is of a planet with vegetation existing without a star for it to orbit.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #269]

Ever since creation of the universe of stars, there has always been shining stars therein. Including gas and dirt to form new stars, adding to the ones first created in a moment and a twinkling of the eye..

You state this as fact, presenting no testable evidence of that being the way it happened.

The testable evidence suggests that all the stars were formed from gas which was drawn together by gravity into galaxies. Since Genesis mentions only stars and not galaxies or galactic clusters, the Genesis story has insufficient explanatory power.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #271]

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

True. The man, not the animal.

Was the man an animal before he came to know good and evil?