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 #99]

Chromosome #2 is distinct to people alone. Like similar physical appearance, primates only have nearly identical Chromosome #2. Similar and nearly is not scientific proof. They only work in house shoes and horseshoes. They are similar in name and nearly the same, but a house shoe is never a horseshoe, nor a horseshoe is a house shoe. Nor a chromosome #2 person is a nearly chromosome #2 primate...

Even the chromosome's worth of bone link is only nearly so. So close, yet so far away.

There's also the fact that only people have 23 chromosomes, while all primates have 24. That 24th could be the animal chromosome, that people just don't have.

Not quite----we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other primates have 24 pairs. Remember post #34? Our chromosome #2 is a fusion of a chromosome pair which remained separate in other primates, with an inactive centromere corresponding to chimpanzee chromosome #13.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #99]

All people are entirely separate from all animals on the earth. People cannot possibly be animals, nor animals be people too, due to that complete separation between people and animals, where all people have spiritual intelligence, and no animal rationally discerns between good and evil.

Since you believe in the book of Genesis, tell me this:

If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus not passing on the knowledge of good and evil to the rest of us, would we be animals?

[Clownboat]

However, I don't at all accept any human evolution. I know the difference between the two, and also when human evolution is propagandized as simple biological evolution. The same for proven universal expansion being falsely taught as the unproven big bang.

By rejecting established science, you place yourself in a position of power. Suddenly you get to feel like your an expert when your not and that is a good feeling. I understand why you want to maintain that feeling, but humans are in fact animals. Primates specifically, as has been shown (you just deny this and then pretend you know more than the experts).

I acknowledge that you deny this and fully understand why you are forced to deny this as I was once in your position. Hearing that we are animals gets you emotional because you have a dog in this fight, or a soul to be specific. I couldn't care less if humans got reclassified in the future and would want to learn all about it if such a thing were to happen. You do not have this freedom, but you made your bed and you must sleep in it. Perhaps one day you will be set free?

Question for you:
Why do you think so many humans have Neanderthal DNA mixed in?
(My guess is that you will just flat out deny this, but truly hope to be mistaken).

[POI]

But, to be more accurate, since you say people are primates, are primates people?

No. But humans, like monkeys, lemurs, apes, etc., all share a common ancestry. Do you agree?

Speciation, is the science of taxonomy, that man began long ago for animals alone. The ideology of including man as a species of animal too, is a relatively new modern perversion of taxonomy. The propaganda of the ideology, posing as established science, begins with saying people are animals, and so we also need an animal's taxonomical name. Because no one demoting people into animals, will not also promote animals into people, then it proves it's ideological perversion of scientific taxonomy.

Gen 2 of the Bible confirms the legitimate science of taxonomy, by man naming all the animals, but not naming himself as an animal.

False, "speciation is the evolutionary process by which a single ancestral species diverges into two or more distinct species. It occurs when groups within a species become reproductively isolated, meaning they can no longer interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. This isolation can result from geographic separation (allopatric speciation) or, less commonly, reproductive isolation without geographic separation (sympatric speciation)."

What you state above is a strawman argument so you can continue self-fulfilling Biblical pronouncements.

Which is base entirely upon the spiritual intelligence of all people, that no animals have. All people are entirely separate from all animals on the earth. People cannot possibly be animals, nor animals be people too, due to that complete separation between people and animals, where all people have spiritual intelligence, and no animal rationally discerns between good and evil. (Primates included)

False. See below when we begin discussing the sub-categories of 'morality.'

So, assigning an animal name to people, makes people animals? Not. That's ideological indoctrination 101. Similar physical traits does not make one creature become another. The unpassable gulf between the spiritual traits of man and beast, makes people and animals irrefutably and unchangeably separated. Ours is intelligent, and theirs' is only instinctual. People cannot be animals, because animals cannot be people, and no amount of intellectual reasoning based upon physical traits alone, can make us animals, since the fact of such unintelligent reasoning alone, proves animals are not people.

This is another strawman argument. Nothing more.

Instinctual self and communal self preservation is not morality. Only man has the spiritual intelligence to act moral or immoral, by choosing to do good or evil.

Then the topics of a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice are all instead amoral topics, rather than moral or immoral topics?

Empathy, fairness, and justice, no.

Only people can have empathy, fairness, and justice, which are only spiritually discerned and if necessary enforced. Animals do not have nor enforce moral law. 'Animal Farm' is only an allegorical book of fiction.

Then I guess we can ignore dolphins, as they have been observed showing empathy, by rescuing stranded whales and even humans. Or how about if we too ignore the African Grey Parrots, which have shown altruistic behavior by giving food tokens to other parrots who lacked them. Or maybe we should also ignore chimpanzees, as they display empathy, nurturing, and care for the disabled or injured. Capuchins also exhibit altruistic behavior, by observation of helping others when there's no personal benefit to be had. Or how about the elephants, which are known for their strong social bonds and demonstrating empathy -- including helping injured or dying individuals. They also have elaborate group rituals, including those for mourning the loss of a loved one. The list goes on. But yea, as long as we ignore quite a lot, it is quite easy to retain the beliefs of an ancient collection of writings.

If people are animals too, then people can't be judged for our decisions, because no animal is ever judged for behaving instinctually. I.e. all the ideological meandering is false science:

"Morality" is a very complex topic, yes.

no animal even thinks about be judged by what they do...

Even IF what you directly stated above were true, having the ability to think about a concept does not manifest truth of the concept.

Really? That's how much bone link you have? A chromosome's worth?

Chromosome #2 is distinct to people alone.

This is a prime example of denial. This is more evidence for common ancestry.

Like similar physical appearance, primates only have nearly identical Chromosome #2. Similar and nearly is not scientific proof. They only work in house shoes and horseshoes. They are similar in name and nearly the same, but a house shoe is never a horseshoe, nor a horseshoe is a house shoe. Nor a chromosome #2 person is a nearly chromosome #2 primate...

Negative. Chromosome #2 demonstrates fusion. This fusion is a prime example of speciation. The fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, to form human chromosome 2, is a classic example of chromosomal speciation. This event, which occurred after the split between humans and chimpanzees, likely contributed to reproductive isolation and the emergence of new species. Hence, the reason why so many theists now have to state the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be literal.

There's also the fact that only people have 23 chromosomes, while all primates have 24. That 24th could be the animal chromosome, that people just don't have.

It's clear now you did not watch the video or care to study the findings. Dr. Kenneth Miller explains here. Humans have 23, and not 24, because 2 chromosomes were fused.

I don't at all accept any human evolution. I know the difference between the two, and also when human evolution is propagandized as simple biological evolution.

You no longer have the luxury in making such a baseless statement.

[POI]

You mean cheddar and Kennewick primate. Who says they have to be named Cheddar and Kennewick man? That's an unscientific necessity. Objective science would simply call them what they are: Cheddar and Kennewick remains, that are mostly primate, but also with some distant similarity to human remains. So long as there remains no proof of a human-primate skeleton, then the presumption in naming them 'man', and that they must lead to human beings, is ideological determination, not objective science.

Scientists can confidently determine that Cheddar Man was a human, and not a primate, through a combination of skeletal analysis and DNA analysis:

1. Human Features -- The "Cheddar Man" skeleton possesses skeletal features characteristic of modern humans (Homo sapiens), such as bipedalism. The structure of the pelvis, legs, and feet indicate bipedal locomotion, a key human trait. Cranial Structure is also evident. The skull shape, relative brain size, and facial structure align with modern human features. Dental Morphology is another piece of evidence. His teeth are consistent with a human diet and dental characteristics.

2. Human Genome -- Analysis of "Cheddar Man's" ancient DNA has been shown to possess a genetic makeup consistent with modern humans. Genetic markers are indicated. His DNA contains specific genetic markers that indicate he belongs to the lineage of early Europeans.

In summary, the combination of distinctive human skeletal features and the presence of human DNA leave no doubt that Cheddar Man was a human. His discovery is significant because it provides valuable insights into the appearance and genetic history of early inhabitants of Britain.

Hence, your claim that humans are no older than 6K years, is patently false.

Humans evolutionizing from primates began as an ideological hope, when biological evolution within a species was first proven. It has become ingrained indoctrination to assume any old primate with some likeness to human beings must therefore be leading to a human-primate animal. Therefore, they take the indoctrinated liberty of pre-naming them 'man', before any such human-primate remains are found.

The irony here is comical. You speak of both "ideology" and "indoctrination", while hand-waving away mounds of evidence. Most believers, who still remain believers, who take basic biology courses understand the evidence is overwhelming for evolutionary biology. Which is why many believers now state the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is more 'metaphorical.' It's okay if you want to remain a believer. But denying facts and evidence, and mis-labeling them, doesn't do you any favors.

[RBD]

because the primate Christina says we certainly are animals.

It's scientific consensus to the point that it's basic biology.

Right. The same kind of pseudo-scientific consensus of man-made climate change. I.e. no direct evidence, but an ideological conclusion among the majority of ideological 'scientists'.

At best, Consensus is for guess-work en lieu of direct proof, and often is the open gap for ideology to insert itself en lieu of science.

No need for a false either/or dichotomy. People are animals and people.

And animals are people and animals. The science of analytics, including grammatical analysis, is anathema to inconsistent ideology.

And since neither the Bible nor any sensible person believes animals are raised from the dead to be judged for their works,

Not supernaturally judged, no.

Since judgment of good or evil can only be made by the intelligent Spirit, then that'll be a no. Animals are not judged by works, then neither are human animals.

The ideological conclusion can be naturally foretold by the ideological narrative.

And since people are animals too, then animals are people too.

This is Affirming the Consequent, a logical fallacy.

A = B and B = A confirms analytical mathematics. A = B, but not B = A proves inconsistent ideology.

Do all people calling themselves animals, also call animals people?

No.

Which proves 'people are animals' is ideological and not scientific fact. Otherwise, analytical science would be allowed for B = A, if A =B.

If A = B, then B must = A.

This is more set theory than identiy. A is a subset of B doesn't imply that B is a subset of A.

The ideological claim is people are animals, A = B. Changing the parameters in order to avoid inconsistency, is the mechanics of a failed argument.

PETA certainly does believe animals are people too,

They don't.

They do. Now they are moving closer to the ideological endgame of legalizing animals as persons, with legal human rights.

They think that despite not being people, many animals are conscious and can experience something analogous to human suffering. No animal that can experience suffering should be exploited. Even though that's a higher bar than most people afford most animals, that's hardly "all the rights" of people.

The nature of ideological indoctrination is to desensitize people to the truth. Incrementalism spoon feeds an intended goal, that would never be swallowed whole from the outset.

PETA is the honest wave of the 'human are animals' movement, by taking it to the logical conclusion, that animals are therefore people. They have also been the 'human are animals' vanguard for identifying animals as people with human rights. They are now in phase 3 of legally declaring animals as 'persons' with legal rights.

The rest the animal people, who say animals are not people with rights, are bigoted hypocrites, that think they have some sort of 'people-privilege' apart from all the other less privileged animals on earth. They may be animals, but not that kind of animal...

Aside from your misconception about who are or aren't people, that's more-or-less right.

Your ideological dodgeball is failing: People who are animals, are not people, if animals are not people...Ideology forbids scientific analysis and logical grammar.

We have the ideology that people are animals stated as fact, but so far no evidence.

Well, I quoted a modern biology textbook.

You quoted an ideological indoctrination piece, from what may have been a biology textbook elsewhere.

Another tactic of indoctrination is to feed ideology within legitimate science. Like inserting artificial tofu into a beef hamburger...

Maybe you could counter with some evidence.

I countered with the detailed evidence of standard ideological indoctrination. A lack of response proves the evidence is correct.

It's classic propaganda technique 101: flatter the audience, in order to indoctrinate with ideology, that is without evidence. Add a little sugar to the poisonous pill.

Yes. "You're special."

Which is self-evident by creation. Specially apart from all animals by spiritual intelligence.

Perhaps the 'human are animals' ideologues are trying to play humble, by thinking they are not 'so special' on earth? Maybe that's how they get bypassed from special judgment, that the animals don't receive?

"You were created in the image of the gods." "The gods have a plan for your life." Standard stuff.

The believability of gods is greater than the 'human are animals' ideology. More people through history have believed in God, and the gods, than the relatively modern movement of 'people are animals too'.

Gen(3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

People can make themselves gods on earth by the power of creating our own good and evil, but people cannot possibly make themselves animals of earth, who have no power to do good or evil, much less create their own.

And so, for anyone swallowing the ideological pill, it is digested deeper by now naming people as animals. Since people are animals, then people need an animal name. It's the dehumanization of people into animals by inhuman scientific taxonomy.

You're the only one saying that taxonomy is dehumanizing.

In addition to changing one's own narrative, a failed argument also includes changing the narrative of others. It's the natural progression of a failed argument propped up by artificial devices.

It's the power of naming names: As one is named, so is he:

1Sa 25:25 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him:

Funny that the story you'd pick to represent humanity is of Abigail grovelling before a gang of thugs to save her own skin at the expense of her husband.

Funny and consistent, that you should represent Nadab of Belial's side.

Now that the ideology is wholly digested, the ideologue can speak freely of people being members of the animal family. It's no longer the human family, but the human-primate family. Humans and primates are not ideologically made one.

It's just biological taxonomy. Ideology is more the church's forté.

In fact, it's the godless ideologues that have dominated most of human history, as well as with the most widespread destruction. The most recent examples are the liberal French Revolution, the Soviet Bolshevik revolution, the Chinese Communist revolution, and perhaps even worse, the Cambodian genocide of the Khmer Rouge.

These 'human are animals' revolutions have done far more damage to innocent people than the rogue religious ones. So far, the more liberal version in otherwise democrat states, have so far kept itself to ideologically corrupting science, education, and gvt. But, where ever they have gained gvt power to enforce it, self-destruction surely comes. (It's not by coincidence that the liberal human-animals rule the self-imploding cities.)

The human apes among us, like the good philanthrimate Christina, are going to first try to make us all a family of apes. Any anti-primate people can be dealt with later in another more physical manner. Permanently.

Wow. You went dark fast. Every accusation is a confession?

In the godless 'human are animals' revolutionary movements, every nonconfession is an accusation. Confession of the revolutionary ideology is demanded, and noncompliance is judged as an attack on the ideological cause. Which is why there are first ideological education camps for correction, then labor camps for punishment, and finally judicial murder for extermination.

Since [/i]all humans are animals, and named as animals, then all humans and are biologically related to primates...Since all humans are relatives of primates, then all humans are animals, in need of animal names...Each one is stated as fact in order to prove the other. And stated order doesn't matter.

You've got it backwards. Humans are animals because we're more closely related to the other animals than to things like plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea.

As with all ideologies, give it time. It's also not surprising, that the 'human are animals' revolution is also filled with neo-pagan environmentalists, where the earth-Gaia is alive, and her spirit is in all of her living creatures, vegetation, trees, and even the waters of the earth...

First comes animals are people with personal legal rights, then the trees will follow. The tree-huggers are not far behind the PETA activists...

[RBD]

And now we finally look for the factual proof, and there is no there there. No factual evidence, but only PRESUMPTION. Ideology, not science.

You could stand to spend some time with a biology textbook.

Reading about biological evolution within a species, is certainly better than swallowing human evolutionary propaganda. Which must also be avoided when surreptitiously inserted into biological textbooks.

The "factual proof" doesn't require much more than a microscope.

So far 'the' factual proof is still a theory. The theoretical proof requires turning to microscopes to see what can't be seen, like the theoretical skeletal remains of a primate, that is a human being.

Genomic data have much higher resolution and corresponding certainty,

If genomes are as near a fail as chromosomes, then the theoretical proof still needs some factual proof.

but the evidence is already incredibly powerful.

The evidence of powerful ideology, is the numbers in the movement, as well as the will to destroy any noncompliance in it's path.

The more radical offshoots of the 'humans are animals' ideology include the Bolshevik, CHICOM , and Khmer Rouge revolutions.

As well as the insidious incremental corruption of science, education, and gvt in democratic states. Which lately has made a last leg dive into males are females, and females are males. Fortunately the whole 'human are animals' liberal movement has been stalled by rational people, that are not animals.

Hopefully it will become completely derailed for the distant future, by sticking to it's ideological foundation, and finishing it's practiced self-destruction. By all appearances, the 'human are animals' ideology remains cemented in the hearts and minds of it's dwindling practitioners.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #106]

Right. The same kind of pseudo-scientific consensus of man-made climate change. I.e. no direct evidence, but an ideological conclusion among the majority of ideological 'scientists'.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

[marke]

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.

You've already lost the fight here.... Evolutionary theory is not the same as someone saying, "I have this "theory" I would like to run by you'. Please look into the difference(s), as to what the term (scientific theory) means, verses your version of it instead meaning, as an (educated guess or a hunch). Once you get this part straight, maybe we can address the rest of your baseless claim(s) from the OP?

Marke: Labeling theories, beliefs, myths, and assumptions "science" does not make those false views true or scientific.

[marke]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Why did Jesus create Godzillas and Rodans? Why did Jesus create a cratered moon? Why did Jesus spit in the eyes of a blind beggar? These are strange things to ponder, but to say science has no evidence and only the Bible has evidence, is stranger still.

Marke: Science is completely unable to rationally explain the origin of life and matter.