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...)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #366]

Biological evolution after creation is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not.

"Creation", as you define it, is not proven science. It's what a particular religion's book says.

[Clownboat]

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.

Biological evolution after creation is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not.

This fails to address the actual questions that was asked of you. Therefore, I must assume you don't have a valid mechanism to present and only argue against evolution for religious reasons. I acknowledge your reasoning for rejecting established science and find it to be invalid.

I fear that you are rejecting the theory of evolution while arguing for a form of evolution

Educate yourself on the difference between origin of species, and speciation afterward. No life on earth is proven to originate by evolution. Species of animals on earth have proven to later evolve within their own class of species.

I am not the one in need of an education though and you once again failed to address what was actually said.

What RBD dishonestly quote mind out of their reply was:
"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."

How can a person logically reject evolution while at the same time argue for a super accelerated form of it?
Consider this:
Evolution is false. However, 2 beetles on a boat evolved into 400,000 species of beetle over the course of about 6,000 years.
It makes no sense and I think RBD gets that, which is why they ignore addressing it and instead quote mind it out of their reply while at the same time telling me to educate myself. You can't make this stuff up!

[RBD]

..do you think you know biology, evolutionary biology, and genetics better than the professionals who work in those fields?

You wouldn't ask if my arguments were the nonsense, that you try to write them off as. The irrelevant question also shows you have no sensible response. The reason being, that I am not discounting your accurate biological summaries, but only your unproven ideological conclusions wrenched from them.

Of course, I don't know biology better than you. I don't even like biology. Nor do I know more about proven evolutionary biology than you, though I am becoming fast learner. However, I certainly do know more about unproven evolutionary origin of species than you. Your ideological zeal blinds you to the simple separation between speciation vs origin of the species. They are not the same argument of debate. Marx helped prove biological evolution of a species, but he and others only theorized evolutionary origin of species, as an alternative to origin of species by creation.

So far as your accurate summary of Alu segmentation biology, and it's application to modern forensics, you've inaccurately concluded a match. Your biological science is good, but your conclusion is ideological, not proven fact.

Just because both humans and primates have Alu elements in their DNA, doesn't mean that the DNA is the same. No more than the fact of humans and animals both have blood, means humans and animals have the same blood. Your biological summary of Alu element-based DNA is spot on. But, it can only now be added to the list of similarities between humans and apes, that do not end in a match for any human-primate family relation nor ancestry.

In fact, Alu-based forensics prove the opposite of human-primate relations. The science you know factually, undermines the conclusion you desire ideologically. Alu-based forensics are now used to prove the separation between humans and animals. The DNA samples can now be positively proven as human or animal, not both at the same time. The Alu elements in genomes, that exist in humans and primates are not the same genomes of DNA. Like blood, they exist in humans and animals alike, but they do not match.

The benefits of modern forensics by Alu elements is not just to determine parentage, but is mostly used by investigators to prove whether the blood and DNA evidence of the crime scene are actually human or only animal. In the past, the red, sticky, and coppery smelling blood was just blood. There was no independent scientific means to determine whose, or even what, blood it was. Without eyewitness testimony or strong indirect evidence, there was no way to know whether the blood and tissue samples were actually human or not, much less whose ancestry. Now the wonders of modern science can prove the blood and DNA evidence is either human or animal.

The biology you summarize is good. The ideology you conclude is not. Once again, a 'humans are animals' ideologue accurately shows a list of scientific similarities, and then inaccurately concludes an ideological match, that never factually matches.

[RBD]

Whether the events are by creation or by evolution remains to be proven

Nope. We know speciation via evolution happens, because we've seen it many times.

The events being origin of species, when they first appeared on earth. Not their speciation afterward.

Conversely, we've never seen a species arise via creation by a god.

Nor have we seen any positive proof of a whole new class of species arising via evolution.

Evolutionary speciation after appearing on earth, is both proven and observed. Origin of species, whether by creation or evolution, has not been observed nor proven either way.

However, there is more direct evidence today for creation of species, at least pertaining to man: Human beings are a wholly separate class of people from all animals and their species on earth. This is both proven and observable, whether anyone wants to believe in God creating us that way or not.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

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 clearly have no education or background in evolutionary biology, taxonomy, or any sort of life science.

Your ideology doesn't even acknowledge the complete separation of classes of species? That the fish do not walk nor mate with the amphibian, nor fly and mate with the bird...?

...evolutionary biology, taxonomy, or any sort of life science. But, you certainly have the lingo down.

[RBD]

For the most part, one species cannot give blood to other species.

True. Not all species of animals, even in the same class, can successfully transfuse blood one to another, due to different animal blood type. Same for humans who cannot all share blood, due to different human blood type.

Humans have their one blood with many types, and animals have their one blood and many types. All humans cannot share our one blood together, nor animals share their one blood together. And no human can share our blood with any animal, nor any animal with us.

No human seeks a blood transfusion from animals, nor will any human give blood to an animal. Not to save life...

Various evolutionary pressures, such as a) disease immunity and b) adaptation to different environments, are some reasons why each species differ.

True. They are reasonable explanations for animal speciation.

Humans however do not speciate at all, no matter the conditions, which is another proof that humans are not an animal. Animals speciate, humans don't.

A modern white Brit could still mate with an ancient Australian aborigine.

[POI]

Humans however do not speciate at all, no matter the conditions, which is another proof that humans are not an animal. Animals speciate, humans don't.

A modern white Brit could still mate with an ancient Australian aborigine.

This is because your provided sample group, in referencing the "aborigines", is too short of a timeline. You are speaking about a populous which is only ~50K years old. Speciation sometimes takes hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years to take place. Species with long generation times tend to have slower rates of speciation. This is because evolution is measured in generations, so the longer it takes an organism to reproduce, the slower genetic changes can spread throughout the population. With a generation time of around 25-40 years, humans evolve very slowly compared to organisms with faster reproductive cycles. Our lineage took about 7 to 10 million years to diverge, roughly 400,000 generations.

Gars, which is an ancient fish, have the slowest known rate of molecular evolution among all jawed vertebrates. Their genomes change significantly slower than other animals, and they can produce viable, fertile hybrids with species that diverged 100 million years ago, suggesting a slow rate of speciation.

Bonytongues and gars: These fish families have living members that are highly similar to their fossil ancestors, indicating a slow rate of both speciation and phenotypic evolution.

Elephant sharks: These cartilaginous fish are among the slowest evolving species and offer a glimpse into the past due to their relatively unchanged morphology from their ancient ancestors.

Tuataras: These reptiles are known for their extremely slow evolution, with their form remaining stable for tens of millions of years. They also have very long generation times (reaching sexual maturity between 10-15 years) and slow metabolisms

[Jose Fly]

You wouldn't ask if my arguments were the nonsense, that you try to write them off as.

LOL...that's the exact reason for asking!

Of course, I don't know biology better than you.

Yet somehow you think people should believe your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional biologists. Tell me....why? Why should anyone believe anything you say about biology?

However, I certainly do know more about unproven evolutionary origin of species than you.

How? Did you study it in college? Do you work in it professionally?

So far as your accurate summary of Alu segmentation biology, and it's application to modern forensics, you've inaccurately concluded a match. Your biological science is good, but your conclusion is ideological, not proven fact.

Just because both humans and primates have Alu elements in their DNA, doesn't mean that the DNA is the same. No more than the fact of humans and animals both have blood, means humans and animals have the same blood. Your biological summary of Alu element-based DNA is spot on. But, it can only now be added to the list of similarities between humans and apes, that do not end in a match for any human-primate family relation nor ancestry.

In fact, Alu-based forensics prove the opposite of human-primate relations. The science you know factually, undermines the conclusion you desire ideologically. Alu-based forensics are now used to prove the separation between humans and animals. The DNA samples can now be positively proven as human or animal, not both at the same time. The Alu elements in genomes, that exist in humans and primates are not the same genomes of DNA. Like blood, they exist in humans and animals alike, but they do not match.

The benefits of modern forensics by Alu elements is not just to determine parentage, but is mostly used by investigators to prove whether the blood and DNA evidence of the crime scene are actually human or only animal. In the past, the red, sticky, and coppery smelling blood was just blood. There was no independent scientific means to determine whose, or even what, blood it was. Without eyewitness testimony or strong indirect evidence, there was no way to know whether the blood and tissue samples were actually human or not, much less whose ancestry. Now the wonders of modern science can prove the blood and DNA evidence is either human or animal.

The biology you summarize is good. The ideology you conclude is not. Once again, a 'humans are animals' ideologue accurately shows a list of scientific similarities, and then inaccurately concludes an ideological match, that never factually matches.

Notice anything about the above? You offer absolutely no support for any of it....other than your own say-so.

So again, why should I or anyone else go with your empty claims over the conclusions of professional scientists?

[Jose Fly]

The events being origin of species, when they first appeared on earth. Not their speciation afterward.

You mean the origin of the first life on earth?

Nor have we seen any positive proof of a whole new class of species arising via evolution.

Because that's not how it works, but you wouldn't know that being willfully ignorant of the actual science.

However, there is more direct evidence today for creation of species, at least pertaining to man: Human beings are a wholly separate class of people from all animals and their species on earth. This is both proven and observable, whether anyone wants to believe in God creating us that way or not.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So your support for your claim is the Bible? That ain't how science works.

Your ideology doesn't even acknowledge the complete separation of classes of species? That the fish do not walk nor mate with the amphibian, nor fly and mate with the bird...?

...evolutionary biology, taxonomy, or any sort of life science. But, you certainly have the lingo down.

Ugh....I have to say, if you're a Poe's Law type of troll, you're doing really well. If not....all I can say is it's been a while since I've encountered someone with both this level of astounding ignorance and shocking pride.

It's like Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #362]

How exactly are you defining a "positive match"? Are you asserting that every evolutionary ancestor of humans had to be 100% human in order to be an ancestor of humans?

You know any other kind? How about, when was the exact time in which a primate produced a human being?

Human beings are primates, so every time human beings reproduce, they produce a primate.

The skeletal records only show primates with distant similarities to humans, not a primate becoming a human.

The fossil record shows a progression from a common primate ancestor to modern humans.

False. This is the lie of ideological evolutionists. There are many different forms of primates ancient and present, with varying degrees of similarity to human beings, but no continuous unbroken chain evolving into human beings. They are sporadic, far apart, and never conclusive. Lucy was not a human being, nor is there any other primate remains that become 'evolved' human beings.

There aren't any 'missing links' for biological evolution and animal speciation, but the biological and skeletal record continues to have a definitive separation between animals and humans, as well as between one class of animal from another.

Fish did not produce amphibians, which did not produce reptiles, nor birds, mammal, primates, and man...Each class of animal on earth appeared independently of one another, and lastly appeared modern man and woman.

Evolutionary speciation within a class of animal is proven, but origin of species, and of man, is not verifiably proven: At this time, science allows for origin of species by creation or evolution. People are free to believe one or the other, but not both.

There simply is no primate remains, that have some human characteristics, and are immediately followed by human remains.

That's because evolution happens gradually, not suddenly.

Immediately is not 'suddenly', but distinctly: No unbroken chainnor gaping hole of evolutionary transition.

Once again we see the argumentive difference between factual and ideological evolution. Darwin's revolutionary work specifically proved a continuous, unobstructed transition of a species, into it's newly evolved state: The match from start to finish is distinctly proven.

It's only with origin of a whole new class of animal species, that a supposed transitory chain broken and unproven: There is no distinct match from start to finish.

The same is for any evolution between classes of species, such as a single archaeopteryx, that must be extrapolated along to become a bird rather than a reptile, or vica versa.

It's "extrapolated" because it had reptile features and bird features, showing that a transition was taking place.

It must be extrapolated, because it is never distinctly proven. Ideologues must finish the job, that the factual record fails to do.

Both human evolution and a Big Bang are extrapolations riding the backs of proven speciation and an expanding universe.

"Light of the Creator" is not a scientifically measurable phenomenon.

So they assumed for the earth or the sun rotating around one another, until it was scientifically proven.

Its consideration, therefore, is not science.

This is a false definition of science, that is based upon a limited ideology. What science considers is not bounded by what some people consider scientific.

Science deals only with what is measurable

False again. Science also deals with what is theoretical.

and, as far as I know, seed-bearing plants have never been scientifically measured to grow in one day.

I.e. Science does not disprove how much plant growth can take place in a day. Therefore, it can be immeasurable.

Only bureaucrats consider science as nothing but a measuring tool. The greatest leaps in science are only made by scientists, that set out to prove what science does not disprove.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #363]

There's just no direct evidence for evolutionary origin of universe and species.

There's no direct evidence that Earth moves around the sun.

So, the obvious is acknowledged: there is no direct evidence for the origin of the universe and planetary species by evolution. Both the big bang from gas and dust, and primate-human evolution are unproven theories at best, and indoctrinated ideologies at worst.

Also, the earth and sun rotation with the earth orbiting the sun, as the moon orbits the earth, is proven fact by direct evidence.

Rather than trying to change the definition of direct evidence, just stick to the fact that primate-human evolution revolves solely around indirect circumstantial evidence.

If that doesn't lead you to be a flat-earther, then you acknowledge that something need not be in direct evidence in order to be in evidence. Evidence discovered through deeper investigation is just as strong if not stronger.

There does not need to be direct evidence, in order to draw a conclusion by indirect evidence. However, the conclusion remains a matter of faith, wen lieu of the direct evidence proving the conclusion. This is how science and lawcourts arrive at theoretical and reasonable conclusions, when there is no direct evidence: they are believable.

Once again, no one is declaring that origin of species by evolution is unbelievable, but only that it is not proven with direct evidence. Evolutionary speciation after the fact is proven, not origin of species before they begin to evolve. And so, origin of species by creation remains believable. Only committed ideologues would say creation or evolution is scientifically disproven.

Or they can believe the Bible because it is more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

This sounds fair, but isn't correct. A book can only be believed as written or not. It must be changed in order to apply personal tastes and whims to it.

That would explain the Bible's many inconsistencies.

That would explain the many inconsistencies of Bible readers.

And the inconsistent response to what I said, proves why all accusers of the Bible consistently read it wrong. Their ideology skews their comprehension.