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 #399]

I've already explained that certain conditions have to be present for remains to become fossilized,

I.e. a necessary reason why the record is not nearly complete, nor convincing to an objective skeptic.

Imaginary pictorials of 'hoped for' fossil confirmation, must still be used en lieu of fossil confirmation.

There's far more fossil evidence of primate ancestors of humans than there is of a talking snake.

There's enough circumstantial evidence for someone to believe primate-human evolution. There's also enough evidence for someone to believe man created in God's image, separate from all the animals of the earth.

You refer to the biblical account of the sudden creation of humans as "enough evidence" while dismissing the evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial".

Remember----the evidence of human evolution isn't only in the fossil record. It's in our own bodies.

*If we had no evolutionary relation to the great apes, we would have 23 pairs of unfused chromosomes as a signpost shouting out, "Look! These guys are different! No evolution going on here!" Instead, we have a pair of chimpanzee chromosomes fused within us where they still have those chromosomes separate.

*If we had been suddenly created to walk upright, we should have feet more like those of ostriches [which evolved from bipedal dinosaurs]. Instead, our feet have the structure of a second pair of hands which we would have used before we became bipeds.


Finding something spiritual in our nature is well and good enough, but insisting that we had to be planted here like a geranium in a flowerpot [to borrow an expression from Bertram Cates] so you can rule out every spiritual approach other than the biblical one is unwarranted.

[RBD]

I'm finished correcting you accusing me of rejecting evolution itself.

Please address why you reject the theory of evolution

Still finished.

[RBD]

Rejecting established science can make some people feel like they are the experts and that can be a good feeling.

Dittoes for ideologues reinventing science to fit their own conscience.

2Ti 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own will shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

[Clownboat]

I'm finished correcting you accusing me of rejecting evolution itself.

Please address why you reject the theory of evolution

Still finished.

So you now accept the theory of evolution?
Out of curiosity, which arguments changed your mind? I ask so we can begin with those the next time we encounter someone that was in the position you once were.

Congrats on your willingness to amend your thinking!

[Clownboat]

Rejecting established science can make some people feel like they are the experts and that can be a good feeling.

Dittoes for ideologues reinventing science to fit their own conscience.

Science is a method, not something that gets reinvented. Therefore your 'ditto' is misplaced for being inaccurate and it still stands that there are those that reject established science in order to then feel like they are the experts. Something you are doing in this thread it seems.

2Ti 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own will shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Back to quoting scripture at people...
Psalm 14:1 a fool says in his heart there is no God
If a fool has figured it out, what excuse do believers have?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #381]

"Creation", as you define it, is not proven science. It's what a particular religion's book says.

To be objectively fair, then, Biological evolution after origin is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not. Or, Post-origin biological evolution...

It's like you're trying to straddle the fence between accepting the evidence of evolution while denying that we have a place in it ourselves.

Your trying to do away with the fence between proven biological evolution, and unproven origin of species by evolution. That's why you speak of them both as one 'evolution'.

Those who keep the fence where it belongs, are then accused of rejecting 'evolution'.

If we didn't evolve, why are our bodies made to look like we did?

If our bodies look the same as always, we didn't evolve.

No human skeletal remain says otherwise...

Look at our feet. The human foot has a ridiculously unnecessary number of bones and joints for walking upright. Our feet are built like a second pair of hands, right down to the same number of digits, which strongly indicates that a second pair of hands is what our feet originally were.

Are you now arguing for the old Eastern myth of humans walking on four hands?

Or, are you simply asking the age old question: Why hast thou made me thus? It's common sense that human physiology makes us more versatile and adaptable with constructive engineering skills. Such as the uniquely human opposable thumb...

[POI]

Those who keep the fence where it belongs, are then accused of rejecting 'evolution'.

Those who (re-invent/re-define) speciation, common ancestry, and xenotransfusions are objectively guilty of committing fallacious reasoning.

[RBD]

Below is to address the meat and potatoes, for which you have appeared to skip:

POI (post 353) Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

RBD (post 353) where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin

POI (post 358):

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. RBD essentially stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes. Other species also present these actions.

Conclusion: According to RBD's given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How is RBD going to dig himself out of this one?

When you quote me, rather than ad lib, then we'll see.

In the meantime, humans are animals, and animals are moral, are personal ideologies, that do not include animals are humans, and are immoral.

You've already admitted you will just wiggle regardless. I've given you exact post numbers to reference. This is more than sufficient.

Post 149 is where your assertions came back to bite you. Here is a basic logical syllogism, based upon your own given answers:

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and justice.
P3) Therefore, other animals demonstrate moral acts.

Still waiting on my quotes, not your ad-libbing syllogizing.

If you don't know the difference, then what you need to do, is copy and past what I have said, rather than continuing to talk about what you say I've said. If you can't find any quotes of me saying what you say I've said, then it's because I never said what you keep saying I've said.

And, according to the common sense rule of debate, without quoting me, you don't get to 'win' by ad-libbing me.

Any posts you make, that continue with your won ad-libbing, and no quotes from me, then I'll pass it on by. I really would like to see my quotes, afterall, you could be right, at least to some degree. So, give it the ol' college try, ok?

In the meantime, anyone saying humans are animals, but animals are not human, are repeating an inconsistent ideology, that defies practical and common sense. Dittoes for anyone saying animals act morally, but not immorally...

[RBD]

1. Homo sapiens have been on this planet way longer than the projected 6K years. Which means you must now pivot accordingly.

I haven't answered this one yet.

Either become more like Dr. Kenneth Miller - as more of a progressive Christian,

Progressive Christian is an oxymoron. Jesus calls it lukewarm spittle.

[POI]

Below is to address the meat and potatoes, for which you have appeared to skip:

POI (post 353) Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

RBD (post 353) where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin

POI (post 358):

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. RBD essentially stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes. Other species also present these actions.

Conclusion: According to RBD's given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How is RBD going to dig himself out of this one?

When you quote me, rather than ad lib, then we'll see.

In the meantime, humans are animals, and animals are moral, are personal ideologies, that do not include animals are humans, and are immoral.

You've already admitted you will just wiggle regardless. I've given you exact post numbers to reference. This is more than sufficient.

Post 149 is where your assertions came back to bite you. Here is a basic logical syllogism, based upon your own given answers:

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and justice.
P3) Therefore, other animals demonstrate moral acts.

Still waiting on my quotes, not your ad-libbing syllogizing.

If you don't know the difference, then what you need to do, is copy and past what I have said, rather than continuing to talk about what you say I've said. If you can't find any quotes of me saying what you say I've said, then it's because I never said what you keep saying I've said.

And, according to the common sense rule of debate, without quoting me, you don't get to 'win' by ad-libbing me.

Any posts you make, that continue with your won ad-libbing, and no quotes from me, then I'll pass it on by. I really would like to see my quotes, afterall, you could be right, at least to some degree. So, give it the ol' college try, ok?

In the meantime, anyone saying humans are animals, but animals are not human, are repeating an inconsistent ideology, that defies practical and common sense. Dittoes for anyone saying animals act morally, but not immorally...

You are trying to wiggle out of the corner for which you are backed into, by way of a very weak technicality. Further, I provided both post numbers, as well as direct "quotes" regardless. Since you are desperately trying to evade the obvious, let's now try a differing approach:

P1) Acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice are considered moral, right?
P2) Acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice are demonstrated by other animals, right?

Assuming your answer is (yes) for both P1 and P2, then the conclusion follows that other animal also commit moral actions.

Since other animals commit moral actions, based upon our exchange, this then means "direct scientific evidence" has also been provided, as you have been sufficiently provided "direct evidence" of other species committing conscious moral actions. Right?

The above questions are somewhat rhetorical, as you have already committed to such answers regardless...

As I see it. your only play is as follows:

1) Wiggle, where the terms of empathy, fairness, and justice are concerned. Meaning, redefine them to somehow still be distinctive between humans verses other animals.

2) Wiggle, and argue that we are not really observing any other species truly committing the acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice.

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

At this point, to continue to avoid what I have stated above will do nothing more than to expose your intellectual dishonesty -- if you are truly actively searching for truth. Are you in search of truth, or not?

For me, if evolution was false, it would not change my outlook on the Bible at all. Alternatively, I know you must defend your current position about evolution to protect your literal translation of Genesis.