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...)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #619]

You are backpedaling now, when you specifically stated in your post # 609 that it was a "CREATOR GOD" that created the universe. Then in your post #617 shown above you say that the "who" that created the universe is doubly not important! This notion of yours leaves the door wide open that it might not be a Creator God but something else that created the universe! Therefore, your assumed knowledge on an ABSOLUTE of what created the universe goes severely wanting at your embarrassing expense!

Yes, that was my point. Have at it, defend your belief if you can. But truthfully, the metaphysical naturalistic belief system is really pretty bankrupt. This is what is called a conversation.

I don't have a belief, because I don't really know what created the universe.

So, you do understand how bankrupt metaphysical naturalism is.

[Carnivalfaces]

RBD wrote: Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:48 am
The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

The Theory of Evolution explains the origin of species and the abundant variety of life.

It's a pagan natural philosophy for variety of animals with man at the pinnacle,. With 1800's discovery of suggestive evidence, the pagan philosophy has become qualified as a scientific theory.

I trust science, you trust the mythical bible.

It is observed scientific fact which is how we made so much progress medically just in the last century.

False. It is not observed scientific fact, proven by complete evidence. Without such definitive proof, creation remains only a pagan philosophical and scientific theory for explanation for life, the species, and mankind.

So long as creation can explain the isolated varieties of animals, and man apart from animals, then evolutionary speciation remains only a possible alternative theory to creation.

You're declaration of "false" is meaningless or misleading, which did you have in mind? Your word salad is irrelevant.

If you accept micro evolution then you've no reason to reject macro evolution as they both are a result of the same processes.

Observable micro evolution within a species, is not unobserved macro evolution speciation.

Micro-evolutionary changes within a species, is not macro-evolutionary change from one species to another, that can no more interbreed.

Well, if you understood basic biology you'd know it kind of is.

In science a divergent species isn't determined cause one generation looks so different from all the prior generations, that's a childish understanding of evolution.

Exactly. Thank you. Science is not based upon similarities alone, but in proven identifiable facts. The earth and moon are similar in shape, movement, and substance, but the earth is not the moon. The same for fishes vs amphibians, man vs ape

.

Sure, but you didn't say that, I did.

It is when groups of mutated off spring on a genetic level can't procreate with the others in a species anymore; but can procreate amongst themselves, this is when a new species is considered to have emerged.

Exactly again. It's classical evolutionary philosophy and theory later named speciation. The significant part is changes in a species, where no more inter-breeding takes place.

That is where the fossil and biological record fails to satisfy a natural evolution from one species to a different species, rather than simple creation of a new species.

This is where speciation becomes a logical non starter: How can one seed of species not reproduce after it's own kind? How can one seed and species produce another kind than it's own, that can no longer reproduce after it's former kind?

The fossil record never shows the completed incremental changes necessary from apple tree to orange tree, nor fish to amphibian. And science cannot prove nor produce by experiment, an apple seed becoming an orange seed, and fish sperm becoming amphibious sperm...When either of these things are verified in the fossil record, or in practice, only then can we declare speciation is proven fact of nature, without any need for creation.

Creation becomes useless as an explanation for life and the species, because it's proven unnecessary for life and the species. And likewise, so long as creation is useful explanation for all life and species, then evolution is unnecessary for any new species.

Stop you right there. The fossil record does solidify speciation.

Then it can take hundreds of millions of years before the two look unrecognizable from each other.

First, it's not a matter of 'looking' unrecognizable, since similarity is not the scientific basis for determining ancestry. The question is exactly when does one tree and animal seed reproduce another tree and animal, without the same seed. The logical and scientific question of proof, is not about 'how long', but exactly when at any point in time it happened.

Arguing 'how long' one species producing another, is a diversion from when does one species produce another. What good is it to argue how long the ancestral tree 'took' to produce an offspring, when there is no parent producing such an offspring at any given time.

It's all about process and not about production, like bureaucratic meetings without practical results. When exactly did any fish species reproducing fish species, actually produce an amphibian species, that only reproduces amphibians.

Pick one point in those millions of years, when the long dreary evolutionary process finally draws to an end, and one year becomes evolution's factual reality.

Gen 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:21
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 is simple creation and continued reproduction by one's own seed, after it's own kind of species. No need for a theoretical process of millions of years, that has no definitive end. That of course includes when exactly that ape reproduces a man, that can no longer reproduce an ape.

Scoffing that off as too simplistic, is the old evolutionary process, wrapping itself in millions of years of mystery, where that great change certainly must occur at some point in time. Just exactly when remains the million year mystery...And million dollar question.

Declaring speciation a scientific fact, is like declaring self-aware AI a fact, while experimenting with computerized AI. Or, macro-evolution a fact, because of micro-evolution. The great divide has not yet been filled, and is only crossed by philosophical and theoretical faith alone.

Yeah, I trust science, you trust myth.

[Clownboat]

RBD wrote: Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:48 am
The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

The Theory of Evolution explains the origin of species and the abundant variety of life.

It's a pagan natural philosophy for variety of animals with man at the pinnacle,. With 1800's discovery of suggestive evidence, the pagan philosophy has become qualified as a scientific theory.

It is observed scientific fact which is how we made so much progress medically just in the last century.

False. It is not observed scientific fact, proven by complete evidence. Without such definitive proof, creation remains only a pagan philosophical and scientific theory for explanation for life, the species, and mankind.

So long as creation can explain the isolated varieties of animals, and man apart from animals, then evolutionary speciation remains only a possible alternative theory to creation.

If you accept micro evolution then you've no reason to reject macro evolution as they both are a result of the same processes.

Observable micro evolution within a species, is not unobserved macro evolution speciation.

Micro-evolutionary changes within a species, is not macro-evolutionary change from one species to another, that can no more interbreed.

In science a divergent species isn't determined cause one generation looks so different from all the prior generations, that's a childish understanding of evolution.

Exactly. Thank you. Science is not based upon similarities alone, but in proven identifiable facts. The earth and moon are similar in shape, movement, and substance, but the earth is not the moon. The same for fishes vs amphibians, man vs ape.

It is when groups of mutated off spring on a genetic level can't procreate with the others in a species anymore; but can procreate amongst themselves, this is when a new species is considered to have emerged.

Exactly again. It's classical evolutionary philosophy and theory later named speciation. The significant part is changes in a species, where no more inter-breeding takes place.

That is where the fossil and biological record fails to satisfy a natural evolution from one species to a different species, rather than simple creation of a new species.

This is where speciation becomes a logical non starter: How can one seed of species not reproduce after it's own kind? How can one seed and species produce another kind than it's own, that can no longer reproduce after it's former kind?

The fossil record never shows the completed incremental changes necessary from apple tree to orange tree, nor fish to amphibian. And science cannot prove nor produce by experiment, an apple seed becoming an orange seed, and fish sperm becoming amphibious sperm...When either of these things are verified in the fossil record, or in practice, only then can we declare speciation is proven fact of nature, without any need for creation.

Creation becomes useless as an explanation for life and the species, because it's proven unnecessary for life and the species. And likewise, so long as creation is useful explanation for all life and species, then evolution is unnecessary for any new species.

Then it can take hundreds of millions of years before the two look unrecognizable from each other.

First, it's not a matter of 'looking' unrecognizable, since similarity is not the scientific basis for determining ancestry. The question is exactly when does one tree and animal seed reproduce another tree and animal, without the same seed. The logical and scientific question of proof, is not about 'how long', but exactly when at any point in time it happened.

Arguing 'how long' one species producing another, is a diversion from when does one species produce another. What good is it to argue how long the ancestral tree 'took' to produce an offspring, when there is no parent producing such an offspring at any given time.

It's all about process and not about production, like bureaucratic meetings without practical results. When exactly did any fish species reproducing fish species, actually produce an amphibian species, that only reproduces amphibians.

Pick one point in those millions of years, when the long dreary evolutionary process finally draws to an end, and one year becomes evolution's factual reality.

Gen 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:21
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 is simple creation and continued reproduction by one's own seed, after it's own kind of species. No need for a theoretical process of millions of years, that has no definitive end. That of course includes when exactly that ape reproduces a man, that can no longer reproduce an ape.

Scoffing that off as too simplistic, is the old evolutionary process, wrapping itself in millions of years of mystery, where that great change certainly must occur at some point in time. Just exactly when remains the million year mystery...And million dollar question.

Declaring speciation a scientific fact, is like declaring self-aware AI a fact, while experimenting with computerized AI. Or, macro-evolution a fact, because of micro-evolution. The great divide has not yet been filled, and is only crossed by philosophical and theoretical faith alone.

Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory

We all hear your claims that have been demonstrated to be incorrect. Why do you continue to make incorrect claims that are so easily debunked in debate where we are all expected to be challenged? Did you expect us to act like children and not consider your words and compare them with our current knowledge about the world?

Sadly, it seems to me that you are here to preach your beliefs at people. We do hear your beliefs, but can you make us care?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #619]

You are backpedaling now, when you specifically stated in your post # 609 that it was a "CREATOR GOD" that created the universe. Then in your post #617 shown above you say that the "who" that created the universe is doubly not important! This notion of yours leaves the door wide open that it might not be a Creator God but something else that created the universe! Therefore, your assumed knowledge on an ABSOLUTE of what created the universe goes severely wanting at your embarrassing expense!

Yes, that was my point. Have at it, defend your belief if you can. But truthfully, the metaphysical naturalistic belief system is really pretty bankrupt. This is what is called a conversation.

Okay, so you ADMIT that your "backpedaling" and contradicting nature makes you look dumb, granted! Does your dumbness come naturally, or do you have to work at it daily? Entertain the Atheists and show how your inept thinking PROVES that metaphysical naturalism is bankrupt, and if you have the nerve, which I doubt you do, use those pesky "details" that pseudo-christians RUN AWAY from! .... Don't be SCARED, put your money where your mouth is, whereas the membership will now watch you fumble around in embarrassment!

BEGIN:

I don't have a belief, because I don't really know what created the universe.

So, you do understand how bankrupt metaphysical naturalism is.

In metaphysical naturalism showing that the primitive god concepts of the Bronze, Iron, and New Age gods are easily dismissed in the 21st Century by using their own writings in their man written books, where the pseudo-christian when confronted with such facts, RUNS AWAY AND HIDES FROM THEM IN SILENCE, just like "RBD" has had to do in this thread with me alone.[/b]. Whereas, if you continue with me with your comical "Dog and Pony Show," YOU will be running away and hiding from FACTS as well!

YOUR MOVE!




.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #624]

I defended my belief already. Have at it, defend your belief if you can. Which you have already said that you cannot. So have a nice day!

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #624]


EarthScienceguy, who went to "BRD's" school of "How to embarrassingly RUN AWAY from Atheists when they own you, your topic in question, and your faith!

I defended my belief already. Have at it, defend your belief if you can. Which you have already said that you cannot. So have a nice day!

^ You know more defended your belief than you could walk on water in the summer time .... LOL! Look at your posts, they're a total mess, where at times you didn't know what you had said, where I had to correct you in front of the membership, and then your LAME excuses that followed!

All I said is that I don't have a belief, because I don't really know what created the universe. GET IT? ..... Maybe?



Furthermore at your embarrassing expense, you NEVER addressed all of my questions to you in the following instances shown below, but only RAN AWAY from them and went into hiding again!:

1. Huh?! If your once again jabberwocky states that the Boltzmann brain computer sim doesn't explain creation, then how can this system push creation back in time? HELLO, anybody home today, NOT!
EXPLAIN, AGAIN, WITH LESS JABBERWOCKY: (Post #619)


2. ^ WRONG!!! Metaphysical naturalism is defined as in direct opposition to any primitive and barbaric godly belief systems, that unfortunately still exist today in the feeble minds of their believers! THINK, where individuals today take part in Metaphysical Naturalism in demeaning the aforementioned Religions of today, so it still exists today, where you said that it couldn't exist subsequent to the creation of the universe! ...... Duh! (Post #612)


3. ^ You explicitly said a "Creator God" in proposition number 1 created the universe, and then you follow up in proposition number 2 by saying "whatever it is that created the universe ....." is a BLATANT CONTRADICTION, where you say you know who created the universe, and then you don't know who created it! .... How embarrassing can you get in front of the membership?! (Post # 612)



Here is an image of "EarthScienceGuy" RUNNING AWAY from some of my questions to him because
he couldn't address them, because what he "thought he knew," HE DIDN'T!





NEXT?!



.

[1DoubtingThomas]

There is no designed test to disprove speciation, except by proving creation. And vica-versa.

"RBD," since you had to embarrassingly RUN AWAY AGAIN from my post #616 to you relative to your MYTHICAL Jewish Bible Creation,
I will then show you installment number 2 that you can also run away from as an ungodly pseudo-christian! ..... READY?


"RBD'S" CHRISTIAN CREATION ALTERNATIVE AND DEFAULT TO EVOLUTION, NUMBER TWO, ..... ATHEISTS, STOP LAUGHING!:

Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. (Genesis 1: 26)

Since Jewish Christianities GOD are is in a plural form, as in "us and "our" as embarrassingly shown above, then the plural Gods specifically said that Adam will resemble them in mankind! Therefore, since Adam had to have a penis to procreate the God's Jewish creation to populate the earth, then said Gods in Heaven have to have a PENIS as well since Adam resembles them! Therefore, biblically, said Gods urinate, and shytes, and eat in resembling Adam in having to do the same per Genesis. 1:26! .... GET IT?


WAIT! Christianities Creation Story gets even more MYTHICAL and comical, where the dumbfounded various "God's" in Heaven created 7.7 million of species of animals from the ground as "HELP MATES" for Adam upon earth as shown in this passage below:

The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper "suitable" for him. Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man (Adam) called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

STOP!!! Since there are known to date of 7.7 million animal species that were obviously in the biblical era, that means Adam had to name this astronomical amount of animal species in a 24 hour day of the Creation time period! WHAT?! ......Huh? .....



Can you spell "CHRISTIAN CREATION BIBLE MYTH?" ...... Sure you can! ......



Here is "RBD" asking Jesus for help in trying to respond to my
disturbing biblical axioms relative to his God's MYTHICAL Creation narratives!






.

[bluegreenearth]

The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

That doesn't logically follow.

It follows from the history of evolutionary theory, which began as a pagan philosophy for life, animals, and men in an uncreated universe. It's a natural philosophy without creation.

With modern discoveries of partial evidence, the philosophy has elevated to scientific theory of evolution of the species, without creation.

Marx's Origin of the Species by natural selection, confirms the no-creation philosophy of classical natural evolution.

How does our updated and most current understanding of evolution preclude the logical possibility that the first life on this planet was a deliberate creation?

The Theory of Evolution does not necessarily argue against theistic creation

The pagan evolution philosophy was absent creation, for whom there was no theology for creation by an eternal Creator, living apart from a temporal universe with beginning.

I'm not sure what you're on about with this "pagan evolution philosophy" assertion, but whether it is a thing or just something you've misinterpreted, how does our updated and most current understanding of evolution preclude the logical possibility that the first life on this planet was deliberately created?

science does not function to prove anything but to test falsifiable hypotheses and rule-out the ones that are disproved by the evidence.

This is theoretical science only, not the practical sciences.

How are falsifiable hypotheses proven true in any of the "practical sciences" given the problems of induction and underdetermination?

Science does not function to prove what is already observable fact, such as gravity. Theoretical science only functions to explain how and why natural phenomena exist, such as gravitational theory. But, practical scientific theory seeks to prove what is presently unobserved as practical fact, such as the light bulb.

Evolutionary philosophy and theory is the latter. It's a philosophic theory still in search of complete practical evidence to prove it's a fact.

How does the modern "practical" scientific method function to prove a hypothesis is true given the problems of induction and underdetermination?

but new evidence was eventually discovered that logically compelled scientists to accept the falsifiable Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable explanation.

False. Some physical evidence searched for and found, became the means of accepting old evolutionary philosophy as a new scientific theory. It remains falsifiable in need of complete proof. Evolutionary theory comes up with theories about how and why it could happen, which is not the same as gravitational theory about how and why it does happen.

How could there be such a thing as "complete proof" for any scientific claim given the problems of induction and underdetermination?

Trying to compare with theories about evolutionary theory, with theories about gravity, is either an ignorant or purposed ideological attempt to equate the theory of evolution with the fact of gravity.

I'm unaware of anyone comparing the Theory of Evolution with a fact of any kind. Even if someone made that mistake, would it serve to falsify the the Theory of Evolution or render it a less reasonable explanation for the observed facts?

The fact that various unfalsifiable creation claims preceded the falsifiable Theory of Evolution does not make theism the default explanation.

Not by age alone. However, it remains the most reasonable explanation for life on earth, than for pagan evolutionary theory without creation.

No one is saying there is no evidence for that old pagan philosophy, so that it can now be listed as scientific theory. However, the same evidence still speaks of creation as most reasonable. Afterall, the evidence criteria for creation is already met: Life, the species, and man on earth.

How can an unfalsifiable claim serve as the most reasonable explanation when the possibility and probability of it being false is neither eliminated nor reduced by any quantity or quality of evidence?

Here is what the objective evolutionist must submit to, when talking about his own theory:
1. The theory is not organically deduced from complete evidence, like that of gravity. It originated as a theory alone, in search of complete proof.
2. The theory is made as a direct counter and replacement to any creation of life and species on earth.
3. The theory's own purpose therefore produces it's own demand for complete incremental evidentiary proof, not just isolated examples, which can still be claimed by creation.
4. The theory's own purpose, which is to disprove creation, therefore has the burden of proof against creation. Since creation is already satisfied as an explanation for life and the species, by the fact of life and the species on earth.

Corrections:
1. The Theory of Gravity was not deduced from complete evidence. It originated from a falsifiable hypothesis and remains falsifiable as scientists continue searching for the disconfirming evidence that would disprove it.

False. The theory of how and why gravity works, is by ongoing scientific inquiry and experiment. The observable scientific fact is gravity.

Was gravity the observation or the explanation for objects with mass seeming to pull on each other to where the one with the largest mass has a greater pull on those with less mass?

The only observable scientific fact about speciation, is that it could be possible. Gravity is scientific fact. Evolution is only a scientific theory. Gravity can be experimented with. Speciation remains on an experimental theory. Unlike the light bulb, speciation is not yet proven in practice, neither by the fossil record, nor by present observation and experiment.

Is gravity scientific fact or the explanation for the attraction between objects with mass such that the one having the largest mass has a greater pull on those with less mass? How are falsifiable hypotheses proven true given the problems of induction and underdetermination?

2. The Theory of Evolution only tentatively serves as a reasonable explanation for the observed diversity of species on this planet, not as an explanation for the emergence of the first biological life.

False. Only ideological evolutionary theorists deny the theory of abiogenesis, is a theoretical origin of life by evolutionary process. They deny Marx's Origin of the Species by natural selection, as a theory of natural origin of life, and not just of theory of life evolving. Marx's title conforms to classical evolutionary pagan philosophy absent creation, and modern scientific theory replacing creation.

Is it logically possible for someone to accept the updated and most current understanding of evolution as the most reasonable explanation for species diversity without also accepting abiogenesis as the most reasonable explanation for life's origins?

3. The purpose of tentatively serving as the most reasonable explanation for the observed diversity of species on this planet does not demand complete incremental evidentiary proof because that expectation would be illogical

False. The ancient philosophy of evolution was absent creation, without any creation debate. The modern evidence-seeking theory must disprove creation by evidence, that can rule-out creation: A completed evolutionary fossil record from one species to a different species, where no creation of either species can be allowed.

How are falsifiable hypotheses proven true given the problems of induction and underdetermination?

The illogic is that any species of plant and animal, can reproduce a species after it's own kind, such as a fish from a fish, and an ape from an ape, that can no longer reproduce a species after it's own kind, such as a mammal from a fish, and a man from an ape.

(consider the logical problem of underdetermination).

Underdetermination is simple a lack of evidence to prove something is natural fact. Speciation therefore simply remains a philosophical and theoretical experiment, which can be a possible explanation for life and species and man on earth. The only problem of undetermined evidence, is for ideologues that want to claim and talk like the evidence determines it's proven fact, like gravity and the light bulb.

But for the Genesis creationist and classical evolutionist alike, underdetermination is not a problem at all: Each can presently believe one or the other is an explanation for life on earth, en lieu of any physical proof of one to disprove the other...

How can an unfalsifiable claim serve as the most reasonable explanation when the possibility and probability of it being false is neither eliminated nor reduced by any quantity or quality of evidence?

4. The burden of proof is satisfied by a falsifiable hypothesis when it survives all tests designed to try and disprove it.

A falsifiable hypothesis about something unproven, continues the test of proving itself by complete evidence. The burden of proof is on the theory to be concluded as natural fact.

How could there be such a thing as "complete evidence" for any scientific hypothesis given the problems of induction and underdetermination? Do scientific theories serve as explanations of observed facts or are they facts in and of themselves?

There is no designed test to disprove speciation, except by proving creation. And vica-versa.

How can an unfalsifiable claim be proved as the most reasonable explanation when the possibility and probability of it being false is neither eliminated nor reduced by any quantity or quality of evidence?

You have been informed on multiple occasions that the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate ideas,

And you have been equally informed, that the only difference between evolutionary abiogenesis and biogenesis, is one is theory for life beginning by an evolutionary process, and the other is a theory for continuing of life by evolutionary process.

You have equally be instructed on what abiogenesis is: A theory for life beginning by an evolutionary process. You have equally ignored this defined process for Abiogenetic theory.

Is it logically possible for someone to accept the updated and most current understanding of evolution as the most reasonable explanation for species diversity without also accepting abiogenesis as the most reasonable explanation for life's origins? What does the Theory of Abiogenesis have to do with an argument for the Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable explanation for species diversity?

and your demand for proof is not applicable because the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where that expectation is completely illogical.

It is a necessary demand with ideologues declaring the evidence determines speciation is natural fact.

Whether someone made that mistake or you misinterpreted their argument, how would this falsify the the Theory of Evolution or render it a less likely explanation?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

You keep skipping:

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/or justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral acts.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. According to your own view, Genesis 1 is incorrect.

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

If you cannot refute P1) or P2), this debate is over. Your position is then proven false.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #613]



.
RBD, the runaway from his mythical biblical Creation Narratives that I have shown him!


Listen, I know that it is totally embarrassing for you to try and accept the biblical axioms that I have shown you relative to your MYTHICAL Creation Narratives that are your alternative and default to evolution, as specifically shown in my posts number 616 and 627!

Therefore, since you remain silent upon the said two posts listed above, then I can only assume that you accept that the Bible's Creation stories are a total MYTH!

Therefore, congratulations, where you made the correct choice to run away from said posts and hide to save yourself any further embarrassment to the comical and mythical truths that they represent relative to Creationism! ..... Good for you!


RBD, its a "win, win" situation for you, whereas now you don't have to make a Bible FOOL of yourself anymore in trying to defend your mythical Bible Creationism!
















.