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 #381]

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

To be objectively fair, then, Biological evolution after origin is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not. Or, Post-origin biological evolution...

It's like you're trying to straddle the fence between accepting the evidence of evolution while denying that we have a place in it ourselves. If we didn't evolve, why are our bodies made to look like we did?

Look at our feet. The human foot has a ridiculously unnecessary number of bones and joints for walking upright. Our feet are built like a second pair of hands, right down to the same number of digits, which strongly indicates that a second pair of hands is what our feet originally were.

[bluegreenearth]

It's like you're trying to straddle the fence between accepting the evidence of evolution while denying that we have a place in it ourselves. If we didn't evolve, why are our bodies made to look like we did?

Look at our feet. The human foot has a ridiculously unnecessary number of bones and joints for walking upright. Our feet are built like a second pair of hands, right down to the same number of digits, which strongly indicates that a second pair of hands is what our feet originally were.

Please pardon my intrusion here, but I'm presuming you won't mind me helping with your debate strategy by sharing some insights I gained from my own interaction with this theist. Your interlocutor repeatedly commits category errors by failing to appropriately distinguish between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims and persistently misunderstands what defines each of those categories. Accordingly, I recommend you focus on demonstrating where those category errors exist in your interlocutor's arguments and refuse to allow the conversation to proceed until a mutual understanding of this point is achieved.

Furthermore, your interlocutor also routinely commits the reasoning error of demanding "proof" for the truth of particular scientific claims. The problem of "Underdetermination" makes it impossible to "prove" that any claim is true, and proving the truth of falsifiable hypotheses is not the purpose of the scientific method. Instead, the goal of science is to rule-out all the disproved falsifiable hypotheses until there remains only one falsifiable hypothesis that continues to survive the testing process. So, I recommend you not waste any time attempting to satisfy your interlocutor's impossible and fallacious demands for proof because this is not how the acceptance of claims are justified in science. My suggestion is for you to demonstrate where those reasoning errors exist in your interlocutor's arguments and refuse to allow the conversation to proceed until a mutual understanding of this point is achieved.

Last but not least, it is advisable to establish reasonable and achievable terms of the debate with this interlocutor. In that way, if your interlocutor does not agree or fails to respond in accordance with those terms, you will have a justification to conclude the debate without having to concede anything.

[RBD]

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?

Yes, the origin of species when life begins. The first appearance of life on earth. And if that evolves from inorganic matter, than it's also the origin of the universe. Origin of species is not just speciation of living creatures after appearing on earth, but the originating of life and the universe itself. And if it's by evolution, and not by creation, then neither the universe nor life has an origin to begin with.

Proving animal speciation by evolution, concluding in humans from primates, must begin with proving an origin of the universe by evolution, which is not proven, nor can be proven, because it's not possible. Otherwise, evolutionary origin is not evolution, but creation.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Evolution by definition demands something before changing into something different, so that universal evolution cannot have an original beginning from nothing before. That is the definition of creation, when the universe and life first began. Only creation originates. Evolution only differentiates.

The origin of species by evolution is an ideological misnomer, meant to challenge origin of species by creation. Darwin was a scientific ideologue, who properly should have titled his work, The evolution of species, not origin. While he claimed not to be an atheist with no God at all, he certainly was an evolutionist with no Creator at all.

Original evolution cannot allow for any creation the universe and life, else evolution itself has an original beginning, and is therefore a product of creation. And if a product of creation, then not an evolutionary cause of origin: The original cause for matter and life cannot possibly be by evolution, since there is no matter nor life to evolve from. Origin of universe and life, and so species, cannot be by evolution.

Origin of species by evolution is only an ideological alternative to original creation. Since by definition there can't be any origin by evolution, it must be evolution without origin nor beginning: A universe by evolution must be matter and life from everlasting. If there is no eternally past universe, then there can't be any uncreated evolution of a heaven and earth that begins.

And an eternally past universe, which has been forever without beginning, is simply the old pagan immortal living universe. Modern pseudo-origin of life and species by evolution, is simply a scientific remake of the primordial deities of earth, sky, and night, replaced by a primordial soup of unintelligent organics.

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.

I agree new classes of species arising via evolution doesn't work. It's mostly an ideology en lieu of proven fact, used as an alternative explanation creation. The problem of course is diving into the pseudo-scientific world of an immortally anthropomorphized heaven and earth...

[RBD]

Below is to address the meat and potatoes, for which you have appeared to skip:

POI (post 353) Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

RBD (post 353) where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin

POI (post 358):

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. RBD essentially stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes. Other species also present these actions.

Conclusion: According to RBD's given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How is RBD going to dig himself out of this one?

When you quote me, rather than ad lib, then we'll see.

In the meantime, humans are animals, and animals are moral, are personal ideologies, that do not include animals are humans, and are immoral.

[RBD]

I suspect that addressing below is a futile endeavor... But, if any other creationists are following along, maybe they will not take a page from RBD's playbook. moving forward?

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.

Google AI:

Speciation, the process by which new species arise from existing ones, is a well-documented and observed phenomenon in biology. There are several mechanisms by which speciation can occur, including allopatric speciation, where populations are geographically isolated, and sympatric speciation, where reproductive isolation arises without physical separation. Ecological speciation, driven by divergent natural selection in different environments, is also recognized as a common mechanism.

The evidence for evolution, including speciation, comes from various fields of biology:

Fossil Record: Fossils document the existence of past species and demonstrate how life has changed over time.

Comparative Anatomy: Similar physical features (homologous structures) in different species indicate common ancestry, according to Khan Academy.

Molecular Biology: Shared DNA and genetic codes among organisms, and similarities in gene sequences, point to a common ancestor.

Biogeography: The global distribution of species and the unique characteristics of island species reflect evolutionary processes.

Direct Observation: Evolution in action can be observed in organisms with short lifecycles, such as the development of pesticide resistance in insects.

Good review for biological evolution and speciation within a species.

The claim that the origin of species, including humans, is not verifiably proven by science, and that people are free to believe in either creation or evolution but not both, reflects a common misconception about the nature of science and the relationship between science and religion.

The claim that biological evolution and speciation proves primate-human evolution, is a common misconception between proven speciation, and unproven evolution, which is science corrupted by ideologues.

Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory, not a guess: In science, a theory is a thoroughly tested and widely accepted explanation for natural phenomena, supported by a vast body of evidence.

Evolution explains the diversification of life, not its origin: The theory of evolution focuses on how life changes over time and diversifies into new species, not on the initial formation of life from non-living matter (abiogenesis).

This is a reasonable defense of animal speciation on earth, not their origin. And more importantly, makes a clear division between proven evolutionary speciation, vs unproven origin of species by evolution.

It's only the origin of species, that must include that of life from inorganic matter, as well as the origin of universal matter. If by evolution, then not by creation. If by creation, then not by evolution.

However, origin of species by definition is by creation, where life has a beginning. Evolutionary origin of matter, life, and species is self-contradictory, since evolution by definition cannot originate anything, but only change it into something else. Only creation originates what was not. Evolution only diversifies what was.

Scientific consensus on evolution: The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts evolution, including human evolution,

Science proves evolutionary diversifying of species after appearing on earth. Some scientists believe primate-human evolution based upon indirect evidence, which may be an outspoken majority. Ideological scientists say primate-human evolution is proven, and probably work to convert any scientist remaining skeptical, and to silence any scientist believing origin of species and humans by creation.

Intersection of science and religion

The intersection of science and religion, whether established or ideological, is when belief must be sufficient for currently unproven theories and speculative possibilities. Such as abiogenesis.

Complementary perspectives: Science focuses on understanding the natural world through empirical evidence, while religion addresses questions of faith and meaning.

No one can separate meaning from natural fact nor empirical evidence. The objectivity of the clinical scientist can only go so far...Scientific ethics includes the use of science. Which therefore also includes beliefs, where theories remain unproven.

I.e. no person can be without any faith in anything, nor be void of religious practices by faith. Humans are not animals.

Compatibility for many: Many religious denominations and individuals find no conflict between their faith and the acceptance of evolution, seeing it as compatible with their understanding of a creator's role.

Certainly. Evolutionary diversification of the species after appearing on earth, is simple speciation. It does not reject creation of the animals and humans. It's only origin of species by evolution, that is self-contradicting, and an unprovable challenge to origin by creation.

It's a non-creation ideology, that is only possible with an evolving universe of matter and life, that has no original beginning. Either inorganic matter is everlastingly alive and deified, or life evolves from unintelligent inorganic molecules. Frankly, pagan pan-theism makes more sense with a 'living' universe, than dumb dead matter becoming smartly alive by evolutionary heat...

Conflict for some: Some religious perspectives, particularly those based on a literal interpretation of religious texts, may perceive a conflict. It is important to distinguish between scientific findings based on evidence and religious beliefs based on faith.

Dittoes ideological beliefs without the basis of scientific proof.

While some find these domains to be in conflict, many others find them to be complementary ways of understanding the world and our place in it

God can create all the animals of the earth, and then man and woman. With many animals evolving into many splinter species, while men and women remain the same as created. Speciation accounts for may different types of fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, and primates. Only creation accounts for men and women not being animals.

It's not the origin of species by evolution, but the origin of evolution by creation. Original evolution begins with the first creation beginning to evolve with a difference.

[POI]

Below is to address the meat and potatoes, for which you have appeared to skip:

POI (post 353) Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

RBD (post 353) where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin

POI (post 358):

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. RBD essentially stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes. Other species also present these actions.

Conclusion: According to RBD's given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How is RBD going to dig himself out of this one?

When you quote me, rather than ad lib, then we'll see.

In the meantime, humans are animals, and animals are moral, are personal ideologies, that do not include animals are humans, and are immoral.

You've already admitted you will just wiggle regardless. I've given you exact post numbers to reference. This is more than sufficient.

Post 149 is where your assertions came back to bite you. Here is a basic logical syllogism, based upon your own given answers:

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) Therefore, other animals demonstrate moral acts.

************************************

In post 353, I asked: "For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?"

For which you responded: "where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin."

************************************

Well, it's pretty much game over. Unless you can pivot in one of two ways:

1) Now argue that P1 is not correct, in that the act(s) of empathy, fairness, and justice are instead instinctual, rather than moral.
2) Now argue that P2 is not correct, in that other animals do not actually demonstrate any of the acts of empathy, fairness, and justice.

Your move buddy

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #395]

I will no longer entertain your strawman argument. Again, it is now clear you are manipulating terms, such as speciation, common ancestry,, xenotransfusions, immune system, and maybe other terms.

Thus far, you have now had to reconcile two facts:

1. Homo sapiens have been on this planet way longer than the projected 6K years. Which means you must now pivot accordingly.
2. Other animals commit moral actions, which by your own given definition, is direct scientific proof for evolution. Which means you must again pivot accordingly.

What is a believer to do? Either become more like Dr. Kenneth Miller - as more of a progressive Christian, or, maybe even ditch the assertions from the Bible all together?

[Jose Fly]

Yes, the origin of species when life begins. The first appearance of life on earth. And if that evolves from inorganic matter, than it's also the origin of the universe. Origin of species is not just speciation of living creatures after appearing on earth, but the originating of life and the universe itself. And if it's by evolution, and not by creation, then neither the universe nor life has an origin to begin with.

Proving animal speciation by evolution, concluding in humans from primates, must begin with proving an origin of the universe by evolution, which is not proven, nor can be proven, because it's not possible. Otherwise, evolutionary origin is not evolution, but creation.

Well, this has officially entered "too stupid to bother with" territory, so if you're a troll I say well done, and if you're not I say get a basic education.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #379]

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

False. This is the lie of ideological evolutionists.

This is the finding of scientists. Science isn't "ideology" just because you don't like it.

Prove it. Show the continuous record just before and when a primate becomes a man. It doesn't exist.

The fossil record shows primates with distant human-like features, no different than today. They are still primates alive or extinct. The fossil record never shows a continuous unbroken chain of primates becoming humans.

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.

I've already explained that certain conditions have to be present for remains to become fossilized,

I.e. a necessary reason why the record is not nearly complete, nor convincing to an objective skeptic.

Imaginary pictorials of 'hoped for' fossil confirmation, must still be used en lieu of fossil confirmation.

but there are enough examples to show that our primate ancestors

Ideological statement skewing the narrative. The only 'our' is fellow ideologues.

but there are enough examples to show that our primate ancestors become more and more like us as we look toward the present through the fossil record.

Only for someone who wants to see it, and so they still 'look toward' it, as though it were already there.

There's enough circumstantial evidence for someone to believe primate-human evolution. There's also enough evidence for someone to believe man created in God's image, separate from all the animals of the earth.

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.

Darwin attributed the human species to that evolutionary transition as well.

True. Attributed. Not proven. And it's still attributed, not proven.

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

Stars formed in one day is never distinctly proven. A planet full of seed-bearing vegetation growing in one day is never distinctly proven. .

No one says Gen 1 is proven by scientific evidence. There's enough present evidence to believe Gen 1, en lieu of any scientific proof against it.

If the big bang and/or primate-human evolution is ever proven by direct evidence, then Gen 1 is disproven. In the meantime, the spiritual and physical separation of man from all animals, is sufficient to believe Gen 1 as written.

You're merely taking the unsubstantiated claims of your preference and presenting them as solidly established fact .

Quote me. I've corrected this lie enough times.

An ideologue is someone who thinks someone willing to believe something is true, also must think it's proven true. That's because ideologues believe their own will makes something true. Since they really really believe it, it must be so. Unlike evolutionary ideologues, I'm not a Bible ideologue, but a willing believer in all the Bible with no living, reasoning, nor scientific evidence proving otherwise...

[RBD]

In any case, so far, I've correctly explained how your Alu-based DNA instruction, and application to forensics, only serves to disprove any family relation between humans and primates...

No you haven't. If you really think you have, why don't you write up your alleged refutation and send it to the journal that published the paper I linked to? Do you really think you know more about genetics and comparative genomics than professional geneticists?

You're not qualified to answer a response to your own summation? Did you copy and paste it from someone else? Is it only from the link you're talking about? Even if that's true, then can't you at least learn enough about what you posted, like I did, in order to defend it from my own response?

It's simply insufficient to prove a match between primates and humans, and when applied to forensics, it's impossible to match us and primates as kin today, nor in any ancient family tree...