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...)

[Jose Fly]

Then new speciation is not acceptable to you

That's correct, because it's a term you made up.

, because you don't want to acknowledge the difference between proven evolution within a class of species, vs unproven evolution between the classes.

You also appear to not even acknowledge that the classes of species have no present relation to one another in breeding nor proven ancestry.

No the issue here is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are obviously quite ignorant of the actual science, and yet somehow manage to think yourself such an expert that the things you post are true merely because you say so.

It's quite the spectacle.

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

Nope. We know speciation via evolution happens, because we've seen it many times. Conversely, we've never seen a species arise via creation by a god.

At least when it comes to origin of species, and whole new classes of species appearing on the earth, that are separate from those going before.

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

You need to head over to the Science and Religion forum and post some of this there, and hopefully Barbarian will notice. He enjoys trying to educate people like you, whereas I'm not interested because you're oddly full of yourself.

More like, exactly when did once class of species give birth to another, such as a fish to an amphibian, reptile, or bird...Or, a primate to a human being...

This is why I'm no longer interested in trying to help you. I explained the silly errors in the above in a previous post to you, but clearly you didn't even bother to read it, let alone incorporate it into your thinking.

It's only your evolutionary view of origin of species, that is either layman ignorant, or ideologically bent.

Perhaps this is news to you, but there isn't a single scientist on the planet who cares what you think of their views.

Many people think they must choose between evolution itself or Gen 1, when arguing primate-human evolution. That's a layman's error. Ideologues may know the difference, but want to keep the evolution that is proven, attached to the other kind of evolution, that's remains unproven. It's indoctrination 102 of conclusion by improper transference...

They do the same with the unproven Big Bang theory piggy-backing proven universal expansionism.

Oh joy, now you're an expert in cosmology! You're a real Renaissance Man, aren't you?