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...)

[Clownboat]

All people on earth have been people on earth by direct evidence of all recorded human history, without any evidence to the contrary.

Ne·an·der·thal
/nēˈandərˌTHôl/
noun
1.
an extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c. 120,000–35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. The Neanderthals were associated with the Mousterian flint industry of the Middle Paleolithic.

Dittoes for all the universe being an expanse of stars.

This is unintelligible and doesn't even follow your claim above. I fail to see that you are using reason as it seems you just insert claims without even trying to provide evidence for them.

(And they say believers in the Bible are the uneducated deniers of reality...)

What is your take on Neanderthals? Surely you don't deny them.
Can snakes or donkeys talk?
Can a human live in a fish for days?
Can decomposing bodies get out of their graves and walk the streets?
Can fish and bread be conjured up?

Please tell me more about reality. Perhaps you doth protest too much?

[Clownboat]

How long ago do you believe the first man appeared? 6K years ago, 10K years ago, 100K years ago, other?
=

According to the Bible beginning after Gen 1:2, and recorded history of man's civilisation: about 6000+ years.

Let me translate your words for you and please let me know if you disagree:

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.

Not that this makes you incorrect necessarily, but surely you must see how devoid of logic and reason your words are?

[Difflugia]

With no evidence that they didn't exist as now,

No evidence is no evidence. It cuts both ways.

then the only evidence is that they always exist as now.

That's an inference, or what you've been denigrating as speculative. You're looking at a picture of a baseball in midair and arguing that it's in a steady state and has always been that way.

Hubble discovered what is happening with the universe of stars, that they were expanding.

Hubble figured out that after the picture was taken, the baseball is moving. It's not in a steady state.

You haven't been reading what is provided.

Oh, I have. You're just fuzzy enough on what you mean by "direct evidence" that it's hard to tell if your special pleading is a well-intentioned mistake or intentional fallacy.

Direct evidence and scientific date are the same thing.

I'll take you at your word. That means we can just start calling it evidence.

Neither the Big Bang nor human evolution have any.

This is wrong on its face. I won't speculate why.

The problem is that this statement is so wrong that it's hard to know what exactly you're wrong about.

Try one point. You can choose the littlest to work your way up to bigger.

You seem to think even defining your terms is a waste of time, but this isn't? Whatever, here goes:

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

There's plenty of evidence for both modern cosmology and evolution. Here is a brief overview of modern cosmology with links to more detailed texts. Here is a similar overview for evolution. Considering your earlier definition of evidence, both should be sufficient. The theories and evidence behind them are now extremely robust. A researcher adding new evidence to the pile hardly justifies being "lauded and quoted," but is just sort of expected at this point. That the biosphere undergoes evolution and speciation is just as much a fact as Hubbell's universal expansion or whatever you think "biological evolution within a species" means. The specific data support the evolutionary and cosmological theories to the point that the scientific disagreements are over relatively minor details.

Every part of your statement is wrong. I can make guesses about why, but that would probably be a waste of time.

Otherwise, what's so wrong about it, is that it's just not what you want to believe.

Your projection is absolutely delicious.

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:

More projection? Something, something, "a mirror darkly."

[POI]

Which discovery of transspecies mutation and evolution does not exist between man and primate.

Since you value the court system, here is a 4-minute video, to save writing a text wall. As a primer, the speaker is a Roman Catholic from the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial. Hint hint, chromosome #2 will be mentioned:

Shared genomes does not prove primate/humans.

Please note what you stated prior, for which I responded to. --> "Which discovery of transspecies mutation and evolution does not exist between man and primate." And now you have moved the goalpost.

All naturally created flesh on earth share natural genomes.

You have to say this (now) because the evidence is obviously overwhelming for you.

However,

Commence with the apologetics spin. Here we go!

no other creature on earth shares the same one blood of all humans,

Right, it's called speciation. Check into it.

nor has the intelligence, imagination, and faith that only people have.

Sure, and other species possess many other traits far superior to humans. Thus, your point is mute if you wish to place humans at the absolute pinnacle of 'creation. Further, humans, from about 4K years ago, would not need any 'god' to tell them that only humans possess rational thought over other species.

Which Gen 1 says is the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, the genome study only once again proves the Bible record, that all flesh on earth have one thing in common: Naturally mortal flesh.

You are quickly going to place yourself into a very precarious position. You are getting ready to walk a rather fine line between "creationism" and evolutionary biology.

No one disputes the observable facts, that primates and humans have similar heads, primates can temporarily walk on two legs, and human flesh is the same as all flesh, excepting that the blood and spirit of man and woman is not like any other natural creature on earth.

These traits aren't what make humans and the grape apes so similar. We share 98% of their DNA. The largest distinguishable difference is in chromosome #2, where the fusion of two chromosomes happened. I guess 'god's' method of 'creation' was to fuse two of the chromosomes to create humans., to distinguish humans from apes.

no human gets a blood transfusion from primates

You are referring to xenotransfusion. And yes, since we are a different species, such a process is never recommended. A matter of fact, xenotransfusion is not really recommended between any two differing species. This goes back to speciation.

nor does any primate have any thought to so much as imagine being primates, much less being human primates...

Are you saying primates do not possess self-awareness?

no person has ever been a primate, nor has any primate every thought, imagined, nor believed like a person.

This is a straw man argument because you clearly do not even understand what evolutionary biology proposes. Humans and primates share a common ancestry.

[POI]

According to the Bible beginning after Gen 1:2, and recorded history of man's civilisation: about 6000+ years.

And you believe evidence supports this claim? If so, give me your best piece?

[brunumb]

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

I eagerly await your evidence in support of this extraordinary claim.

I eagerly await your evidence contrary to this obvious claim. Only a primate/human evolutionary believer, would even think to believe otherwise...

All people on earth have been people on earth by direct evidence of all recorded human history, without any evidence to the contrary.

Dittoes for all the universe being an expanse of stars.

Observable faith in in Gen 1. Blind faith is in a Big Bang and primate/human evolution. (And they say believers in the Bible are the uneducated deniers of reality...)

OK. Just a long-winded way of admitting that you have NO evidence in support of YOUR claim. Since I am not making any claim, it is not incumbent on me to to provide anything. You are merely making a faith based assertion with no valid reason to have it accepted as fact.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

I re-read the OP and tried to identify as many logical fallacies as I could.

I came up with:

False equivalence (equating science with belief in God)
Argument from ignorance (lack of direct evidence does not equate to disproof)
Strawmanning (misrepresenting the Big Bang)
Equivocation (using ‘theory’ in both colloquial and scientific senses)
Begging the question (Genesis is right because it says so)
Hasty generalisation (“humans are self-evidently separate)
Personal incredulity

I may have missed some more subtle ones, but that’s still quite the list.

Quite a few posters already have challenged the claims made in the OP and it’s rather telling that (in the main) they take care to be logically consistent. I sense the OP is less interested in testing the strength of his/her argument and more in convincing him/herself.

[RBD]

All people on earth have been people on earth by direct evidence of all recorded human history, without any evidence to the contrary.

Ne·an·der·thal
/nēˈandərˌTHôl/
noun
1.
an extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c. 120,000–35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. The Neanderthals were associated with the Mousterian flint industry of the Middle Paleolithic.

So says some paleontologists, and some say they were primate and not man. Neither of which prove they were living on earth more than 35,000 years ago.

[RBD]

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.

Not that this makes you incorrect necessarily, but surely you must see how devoid of logic and reason your words are?

I can only speak of the illogic of 'believers' not believing.

Only unbelievers choose something other than what the Book says, because they don't believe the words of the Book.

[Difflugia]

So says some paleontologists, and some say they were primate and not man. Neither of which prove they were living on earth more than 35,000 years ago.

Humans are primates, but we'll charitably assume that you mean "nonhuman primates." So, who says that Neanderthals aren't human? Can you provide a source or quote?