There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

[RBD]

Normally it's us believers in creation of the universe and man by God, that have to answer to unbelievers. But what about the believers in a universe and man made without God. Shouldn't they also have to answer to us unbelievers? Yes, of course, especially since Gen 1 is stated as fact, while the Big Bang and human evolution are not stated as fact, but only theory.

That fact alone alone proves any universe and man made without God, is not a factual argument. Where no fact is claimed, there is no fact to be argued. Only where fact is claimed, can there be any argument of fact.

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another, God creating men and women in His own image: The universe of stars are self-evidently set apart from one another, and are never in the same place at any time. And, all men and women are self-evidently set apart from all animals, and are never the same creature at any time.

In the theoretical argument of the Big Bang and human evolution, there is no direct evidence of all the stars ever being in the same place at their beginning, nor of any man or woman ever being a male or female ape from our beginning. There is no evidence of a Big Bang starting place, nor of an ape-man or woman.

Gen 1 states as fact, that in their beginning God creates all the stars, as lights of an expansive universe turned on all at the same time. This is daily seen in the universe. While, the Big Bang is stated as a theory alone, that all the stars began as an explosion of light from one place. This was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

Gen 1 also states as fact, that in our own beginning God creates all men and women in His own image, as persons uniquely different from all animals. While the human evolution theory, states that all persons began as a birth of man from ape. That was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

There's more in-depth clarification to follow, if anyone wants to take a look. But, the argument is as self-explanatory, as it is self-evident. (Unless of course anyone can show any error in the argument, whether with the explanation and/or the facts and theories as stated...)

[RBD]

Afterall, I would never go to an unbeliever to help me believe the Bible. No help is better than bad help...

No surprise as cults don't allow such things (allowing the mixing with those not in the cult). Any help from anyone outside of the cult will be viewed as bad help, thus protecting the cult beliefs.

False analogy. Getting help from non-believers in translating, gathering facts, and even interpreting a Book, that they don't believe is true, is not the same as getting help from them in believing the Book.

Personal bias skews every argument into some different shape, especially if the intent is to make it look worse than it is.

These words of mine remain unadressed:
"According to religious promotional material that we call the Bible, some believers of this religious promotional material believe that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were a special creation just 6,000 years ago. Other believers of this religious promotional material do not believe this claim and accept evolution as being the best explanation."

Yes you have been answered. And I'll only answer once more: I don't care what readers of the Bible want to believe, or not, about the Book. I only believe what the Book says.

The Bible never speaks of Homo anything, nor Sapiens, nor Sapiens Sapiens. The Bible does not acknowledge the naming of man as animals, by 'humans are animals' ideologues. And so, like the Bible, I only refer to human beings as man, woman, persons, and people. Not by names for animals.

Therefore, I avoid the indoctrination tool of naming man an animal, in order to lure the simple into accepting humans are animals. Afterall, if humans have 'scientific' animal names, then humans must be animals, right? I mean, it's science, right?

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Ideologues corrupt science, so that science itself can become suspect. Fortunately for me, I know the difference between science and ideology, so that I keep the science, and only throw out the foul ideological bath water.

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

More cult think. Don't even think about questioning the beliefs we reinforce in you as that would be worse then completely disregarding them!
Just the idea of questioning authority is worse then a total rejection of it. Obviously, this is in place to control the members.

You do you though, just don't harm your fellow humans in the process.

Which includes the humans calling themselves animals. It's only because we are all humans, and not animals, that I allow for a fair trial with those that act worse than animals. Rabid dogs, snakes, and man-eating beasts I shoot out of hand. I'll continue to do so, even if the latest 'humans are animals' movement makes animals legal 'persons'. That's when your 'humans are animals' leaders will criminally prosecute humans, that both reject being animals, as well as refuse to acknowledge animals are persons too.

In fact, it's the nonreligious ideologues, that are most common in human history, and the most destructive. Especially the modern 'humans are animals' sort. Their members include authors of the Bolshevik revolution, China's First and Second Mao revolutions, and the Khmer Rouge genocide. In the otherwise democratic states, your members corrupt education, science, and gvt for ideological control.

The 'humans are animals' ideology itself, is the ideological corruption of evolutionary biology.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #119]

All the 'almost' and near-miss data in the world, will never make indoctrinal ideology into proven science.

Throwing the word "ideology" at scientific data will never make the data less scientific.

[Difflugia]

• Our cells have a defined nucleus, mitochondria, and membrane-bound organelles: Domain Eukaryota.
• Our cells lack a cell wall, we're multicelluar, and heterotrophic: Kingdom Animalia
• As embryos, we have a notochord and pharyngeal arches: Phylum Chordata
• We're wam-blooded, have hair and mammary glands: Class Mammalia
• We have large brains relative to body weight, grasping fingers, and flat fingernails: Order Primates
• We have even larger brains than other primates, lack tails, and show complex social behavior: Family Hominidae
• We have even larger brains than other great apes, have curved spines, arched feet, and walk upright: Genus Homo
• We're the only extant species of Homo, sapiens, subspecies sapiens.

Nothing there is assumed.

Nothing there proves human beings are animals, mammals, nor primates.

You assert this, but it's just false. If it were true, you'd be able to define a set of traits that identify animal cells in general, but that somehow doesn't include human beings. You could simply exclude humans by definition, but that would be like defining "plant" to exclude maple trees.

It only proves that the 'humans are animals' ideologues give animal names to human beings, after ideologically claiming humans are animals.

While you're trying to come up with features of human cells that distinguish is from animals, you might also think a bit about what "ideologue" means and how it applies to the discussion you and I are having.

Neither the claim nor the naming proves anything other than the illusion of making ideology appear 'scientific'.

If you show me an animal cell, a plant cell, a fungus cell, a protist, and a bacterium under a microscope, I can tell you which is which. If your claim is true, you should be able to give me a checklist that allows me to distinguish a human cell from the animal cells.

It's no more valid than giving old primate bones, the name of 'man' to identify them.

That's going the wrong way. Not all primates are "man." All "man" bones are primate bones, though.

Giving humans animal nomenclature and naming primate skeletal remains Cheddar 'Man', does not make the humans animals,

You're right. It's the humans having animal characteristics from the macro all the way down to the micro level that makes humans animals.

nor primates of Cheddar men.

If Cheddar men are men, then they're primates as a matter of course. Not all primates are human, but all humans are primates.

Ideology is not scientific proof, but only ideological indoctrination.

That's why scientists leave ideology and indoctrination to churches.

A primate's near similarity to man, does not make a primate a man.

You're right. That's backwards. Not all primates are men. All men are primates, however.

No more than making a planet a moon, which both have similar features of spherical shapes, that shine light, and have gravitational pull.

A moon orbits a planet. That's the definitional difference.

And giving a planet a moon name like Gaia Lunaris, doesn't make the planet a moon.

Right. Because it doesn't orbit another planet, which is what would make it a moon.

Ideologues attempting to combine such nomenclature between humans and animals, simply because of physical similarities,

As opposed to what? Aren't the similarities between fish, frogs, and raccoons physical?

is as unscientifically childish as saying the moon is also a terrestrial body, because it's similar to the earth in shape, shine, and rotation.

Most children know better than that, at least until the church gets hold of them.

Talking about human primates is as unscientific and meaningless as that of terrestrial moons.

So you assert. but I'm pretty sure you're terribly wrong. If you're right, you should be able to find something scientific that explains why humans aren't primates.

It doesn't make one the other, except in the unbiblical and unscientific minds of ideological proselytes.

You seem to have problems with both the Bible and science, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't trust your opinion on either one.

Cladistic and phylogenetic analyses confirm the pattern, not only between humans and primates, but between all organisms, living and extinct.

The common nature of mortality on earth is more science, that catches up to Biblical truth:

Is that supposed to be a response?

Isa 40:6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

So Isaiah apparently didn't know the difference between animals and plants, either.

The Bible confirms that all flesh on earth is naturally the same as grass. All flesh is grass, but all men are not grass.

Genesis 2:22 says that humans are made of flesh, though. What's your argument again?

Other than the Biblical biology of the common nature of all flesh on earth, all other similarities between men and apes are only near misses at best, like stars and moons. There is no moon star nor human primate.

Humans are totally primates.

And yet, there is the one biological data, that is not given by 'humans are animals' ideologues, which permanently separates all humans from the animals: The blood.

Not all animals have blood, but anything with blood is an animal.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Genesis 9:4-5 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it: and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man.

What was your argument again?

All men are created with the same one blood of all mankind, and is distinctly unique to men and women alone. Biology shows that the blood of people is not the blood of any animal.

Then you should be able to find some sort of biology text that supports your claim.

And no amount of physical similarities in color, shape, and liquidity can make man's blood animal blood. Humans can never be animals, because we cannot ever have and live by the same blood.

In addition to spiritual intelligence, the fact that there can be no blood transfusions between man and beast, proves that humans cannot physically be animals. The demand for skeletal remains, that could prove primates become humans, must also include proof that any animal blood becomes blood of men and women. The former is not yet found, and the latter is biologically impossible.

Added to the common sense evidence of man's separation from animals by spiritual intelligence, is the confirmed Bible science and astronomy that proves both spiritually and physically, humans cannot ever be animals. No more than planets can be moons. All nations of men and animals that dwell on the face of the earth, cannot have the same spiritual intelligence nor be made of one blood.

Which also includes human vs animal sperm:

Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

As with the blood, so with the seed: that of man is not and can never be that of beast. Nor can one fertilize the other. It is biologically impossible for and flesh and blood creature to be the same, when the blood and sperm cannot be the same. And no amount of 98% near misses of communication, habituation, DNA, genomes, and chromosomes, can ever cross the great spiritual and physical divide between man and beast on earth.

All such 'almost the same' efforts to scientifically support the ideology of 'humans are animals', always end the same way: So close yet so far away, so that spiritually and physically neither is, nor can ever be the other.

That took a super-weird turn, even for this site.