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]

The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the life we see not just now, but also in the fossil record.

Evolution of species is not in question.

Origin of species by evolution is unproven ideology challenging origin by creation.

Why do you object to the simple statement that human primate evolution is not proven science, but only remains falsifiable theory?

Do to the fact that even when scientists have lots of very strong evidence, they rarely claim to have found proof because proof is absolute.

I.e. primate human evolution is a falsifiable theory that is not proven.

Germs and gravity are scientific facts that have been proven.

To prove something means there is no chance another explanation exists.

Duh. Which includes germs and gravity, not primate human evolution.

Are you really trying to say so without saying so? As though nothing that exists can be scientifically 'absolutely' proven?

This is religious thinking and doesn't belong in science.

Creation certainly doesn't belong in evolutionary origin of species. Evolutionary origin of species is an ideological misnomer, that can only allow for eternal matter, life, and intelligence existing without beginning. Otherwise, evolution only begins with original creation.

Origin of species by evolution without creation, is impossible self contradiction. Only origin of species by creation with evolution following, is possible.

Otherwise, there's only evolution of matter, life, and intelligence without origin nor beginning: Pagan eternally living and intelligent universe. Primordial deities evolving into gods, creatures, and men.

I never said human primate evolution is scientifically disproved, and can't ever be possibly be proven true in the future.

Thank goodness, as that would be unwise claims to make.

Dittoes for animals and people created apart from one another, is not yet scientifically proven.

At this time, scientifically, either origin by creation or by evolution can be personally believed, without either yet proving the other false.

I only object to ideologues falsely stating it as fact, as though it were already proven, and not only a continuing falsifiable theory, that is yet to be disproven.

If you were to punch yourself in the face each time you began to type the word 'proof' or 'proven' when discussing science, do you think that would help to avoid using such thinking here?

Dittoes for 'humans are primates' ideologues, talking like their unproven theory of 'humans are evolved primates' is proven fact, like germs and gravity.

There may not be germs and gravity at all, except proven in the future?

Germs and gravity are real. We have theories explaining how these things operate.

Thank God.

If we were to say that the theory of evolution is proven, then there would be no falsifying it and no better explanation accepted if one ever comes up.

No other explanation can intelligently come up, if already scientifically proven. If either origin by creation, or evolution without origin, is ever proven, then the other is disproved.

If anyone were to say evolution is proven, it's by direct evidence proving it.

Evolution of the species on earth is already proven by direct evidence. Evolution of the species without creation is not proven, having no direct evidence.

It's no longer falsifiable like germs and gravity. There is no other explanation.

True. If primate human evolution is ever proven, or creation of man animals and man apart, then the other is no longer possible.

This is bad reasoning and is avoided in science.

Bad reasoning is conflating scientific theory about established facts, like germs and gravity, with unproven scientific theories like primate-human evolution.

Do you believe that the theory of evolution addresses how life originated on this planet?

Of course. That's why theoretical possibilities have been explored for how inorganic matter can ever become organic life, other than by creation.

Otherwise, the evolutionist rejecting any creation must de facto accept the old pagan living universe and theocracy, where universal matter is without beginning, and itself is alive, and having intelligent being.

A latter scientific philosophy is of universal matter, being ruled by the universal Mind, or Prime Mover. But no Creator apart from the eternal living and thinking cosmos.

I.e. the common sense and intelligence of pagans know it's impossible to produce, evolve, something from nothing, except by creation. Especially life and intelligent self-awareness.

Origin of species cannot be separated from origin of matter, life, and intelligence. And so any such origin by evolution is self-contradictory ideology, of pseudo-scientists, that don't want to accept the only alternative to evolution after creation: The living thinking eternal Cosmos of primordial deities, creatures, and mankind...

Or, do you still believe the scientific theory of primate human evolution, is as scientifically factual as germs and gravity?

No! You screwed up again! The theory of evolution is as scientifically factual (to use your words) as germ theory and the theory of gravity.

No! You screwed up again! A theory cannot be both falsifiable and proven scientific fact.

You're still conflating scientific theory about how and why something factual works, vs a theory about something that is yet to be proven.

And more importantly, I'm only referring to the theory of primate human evolution, not the evolution of a species. Their is proof of primate species evolved into different primates, not into human beings.

[RBD]

Evolution of species is not objectionable. Origin of species by evolution is the objection.

This doesn't compute. Let me explain by using language in place of evolution.

Already agree with the evolutionary process comparison of human language, not with proving humans evolved from primates. Dittoes for evolution of human dress and boat making.

There is no issue with evolving human language, being used as an example of gradual 'speciation', that provides exact changes in time. However, there's a big issue with the gaping difference between the fact of human language evolution, that is confined solely to humans, vs theoretical human primate evolution, that finds no exact transition between humans and primates.

Let's test for this shall we. Please outline the big issue you claim is there for us to examine.

There is no proof that humans evolved from primates. It's fact that human language evolved.

There is proof that human language, germs, and gravity exists. Not humans evolving from primates.

not in proving any evolution between humans and primates. Just because the process of evolution is the same, doesn't mean there's evolution between the two.

Correct! It only suggests such a thing, like DNA, fossils, retro viruses and chromosomes. All these things suggest that humans are primates.

All these can certainly suggest it, but do not prove it. Circumstantial evidence can be used to believe in something, that is not proven by direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence cannot be used to prove something without direct evidence.

There is no argument against the 'suggestion' humans evolved from primates, but only against any unproven ideology, stating that humans are evolved from primate.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #481]

Origin of species by evolution without creation, is impossible self contradiction. Only origin of species by creation with evolution following, is possible.

Yet you admit that other species could evolve while denying that humans also could evolve. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[RBD]

However, you must still account for when the original primate becomes human.

As soon as you show me the date that Latin became Spanish and Italian.

I see your point. The analogy doesn't work though. The study of language is complete, with no doubt of language evolution.

The study of primate human evolution is gaping, with plenty of doubt about humans evolving from primates.

A better analogy for primates evolving into humans, is the theory of ET's seeding life on earth. They are both unproven possible alternatives to creation of life on earth, and man created apart from all animals.

Question for you:
How do you explain Neanderthals and the fact that most humans have some Neanderthal DNA in them?

Like animal DNA, Neanderthal DNA is not human DNA: No match. All humans have human DNA, not just mostly human DNA.

Just another similarities study, proving only that animals and Neanderthals are physically similar to humans.

Now, if Neanderthals actually have human DNA, then of course Neanderthals are humans.

Only humans with human DNA. Only Neanderthals have Neanderthal DNA. The same as only humans have human blood, and only animals have animal blood.

And so, we'll agree in origin of life on earth by creation,

I am willing to do grant such a thing if it will help you to stay focused on evolution (not abiogenesis). Hopefully we can stay focused on the evolution of species now.

I can, but you can't. Your 'humans are evolved primates' ideology forbids you from seeing the simple difference between proven evolution of species, and unproven evolution of primate species into human beings.

For example, how did we get from 2 pair of beetle to over 400,000 in around 6,000 years?

That may be the limitation of evolution, not of creation.

How does earth get any life, or living beetle? If by creation, then so also their great multitude of variation in a day. That's the power of creation, not limited to the evolutionary process.

Since origin of life on earth is not scientifically proven either way, then either way remains possible.

Since you don't 'care' about how life originated and began on earth in the first place...

Correct. How life originated has nothing to do with how life (populations) changes over time.

True. And for the last time. There's no argument against evolution of species, but only against origin of species by evolution.

If you want to avoid Marx's theory of origin of species by evolution, then so would I. It only leads to an ideological self-contradiction, that must accept an eternal ever-evolving living and thinking Cosmos, without beginning nor ending.

I believe in creation of species, followed by evolution within it's own species. I also believe in creation of all animal species and man apart from one another.

And unlike primate human evolution that only has circumstantial evidence, man being created different from all animals, has one daily obvious direct proof: Man's spiritual intelligence separates us from all animals on the earth. Physically we are made in the image of all flesh on earth, but we are made intelligently separate from all animals on earth:

Jhn 1:9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #484]

Like animal DNA, Neanderthal DNA is not human DNA: No match. All humans have human DNA, not just mostly human DNA.

Just another similarities study, proving only that animals and Neanderthals are physically similar to humans.

Neanderthals were a human species.
https://archaeologymag.com/2024/11/nean ... practices/

And unlike primate human evolution that only has circumstantial evidence, man being created different from all animals, has one daily obvious direct proof: Man's spiritual intelligence separates us from all animals on the earth.

Define spiritual intelligence.

Would it include....burial practices?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

You keep skipping:

In honor of posts 149 and 358, the meat and potatoes of our exchange has been perpetually avoided.

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral acts.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. According to your own view, Genesis 1 is incorrect.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #481]

Origin of species by evolution without creation, is impossible self contradiction. Only origin of species by creation with evolution following, is possible.

Yet you admit that other species could evolve while denying that humans also could evolve. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Believing in birds speciating into different types of birds, is not the same as beleiving in birds speciating into reptiles, or vica versa. Dittoes for primates into different primates, but not primates into human beings. Trying to have a cake and eat it to, is by then saying primates are not people, and yet humans are primates.

However, on the subject of speciation, where there is theoretically an 'original' primate, that evolved into different nonbreeding primates, where is the evidence of an original tree evolving into different kinds of hardwood and fruit trees? Where is the 'original' fruit tree evolving into apple, orange, and kumquat trees?

Evolution of species cannot be confined to species animals alone, but also of trees, else evolution is limited and not universal. And if evolution is not universal, then it can't possibly apply to origin of species, which must account for origin of all life on earth.

Is there only a prime animal evolved into all animals, but not a prime tree?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #484]

Like animal DNA, Neanderthal DNA is not human DNA: No match. All humans have human DNA, not just mostly human DNA.

Just another similarities study, proving only that animals and Neanderthals are physically similar to humans.

Neanderthals were a human species.
https://archaeologymag.com/2024/11/nean ... practices/

There is no human species. That's an ideological statement, not proven fact.

Neanderthal was either a human being with human DNA, or another primate with primate DNA similar to human begins.

And unlike primate human evolution that only has circumstantial evidence, man being created different from all animals, has one daily obvious direct proof: Man's spiritual intelligence separates us from all animals on the earth.

Define spiritual intelligence. Would it include....burial practices?

Only for fellow human begins. Not for animals. Or, are animals people too?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #487]

Believing in birds speciating into different types of birds, is not the same as beleiving in birds speciating into reptiles, or vica versa.

It doesn't have to be the same. In Archaeopteryx, we have an example of reptile transition to bird.

Trying to have a cake and eat it to, is by then saying primates are not people, and yet humans are primates.

It isn't about primates not being people. It's about humans being primates by:

hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

....because those are the things which make a primate.

Evolution of species cannot be confined to species animals alone, but also of trees, else evolution is limited and not universal. And if evolution is not universal, then it can't possibly apply to origin of species, which must account for origin of all life on earth.

The difference between abiogenesis and evolution has been pointed out.

Is there only a prime animal evolved into all animals, but not a prime tree?

See [again] video in post #288.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #488]

There is no human species. That's an ideological statement, not proven fact.

It's not ideological. It's science, rather than sectarian dogma.

Neanderthal was either a human being with human DNA, or another primate with primate DNA similar to human begins.

Neanderthal were not Homo Sapiens; their remains tell us that.


Define spiritual intelligence. Would it include....burial practices?

Only for fellow human begins. Not for animals.

At the same time Neanderthal remains tell us that they weren't Homo Sapiens, they also tell us that Neanderthal had burial practices. So you can't define them as "animals", and they weren't modern humans.