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]

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

Of course it is, because you made it up!
Either way, this reply was once again a complete failure to address what was said to you.

For the readers. What was said to RBD was:
""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.""

Germs and gravity are scientific facts that have been proven.

You are a dishonest debater.
I asked you if you rejected germ theory and the theory of gravity. You once again dodge my question by pretending that I asked you something I didn't.
If all Christians were as dirty as you are, there would be no Christianity remaining. Thankfully the Christians I know are for the most part honest people. I wish you were...

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

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

Do you actually think there is anyone here questioning the validity of germs or gravity? Your willingness to be so dishonest is astounding. Be honest, have I been talking to you about gravity, or the theory of gravity?
You complained about theories and were put in your place, so now you pretend we talking about germs and gravity and not the theories. You really should be ashamed.

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

I'm not saying that because it would be stupid to say, and yet that is were you arrived! You need to look inwards my fellow debater.
As I already explained to you and it sadly went over your head. Gravity is proven, the theory explaining it is not and should forever remain open to being shown to be incorrect lest it be like religious dogmas.

Creation certainly doesn't belong in evolutionary origin of species.

For the love of all that is holy, what the heck is evolutionary origin of species? Even the internet doesn't seem to know what it means. Do you even know what you mean when you say such a thing?

Evolutionary origin of species is an ideological misnomer,

Incorrect. Evolutionary origin of species is a undefined term made up by RDB because RDB seems to like to play pretend.

Otherwise, evolution only begins with original creation.

In an attempt to educate you once again.
Evolution doesn't address how life came about. ONLY how life changed. You will continue to come across as uninformed until you correct yourself on this fact.

Origin of species by evolution without creation, is impossible self contradiction.

Then please stop pretending that evolution is credited with creating life. Evolution evolves what exists. If it doesn't exist, it is free from evolution/evolving.

Only origin of species by creation with evolution following, is possible.

This is false and demonstrably so. For example, if aliens seeded life or if life came to earth via some other means, then creation isn't even needed and therefore you are once again just plain wrong in your assertion.

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

Did you punch yourself in the face when typing this? You should have.

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

Due to the fact that evolution is changes within populations of animals, how can it 'origin by evolution' (create via change) to use your words?
Origin means something begins and evolution refers to changes in things that already have began. Why do you not understand this? It's not hard after all.

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

Ditto is not a valid reply.
I asked you to stop asking for proof when discussing doing science and suggested that you punch yourself in the face each time you start to ask for what shouldn't exist in hopes that you will begin to stop asking for nonsense. Alas, it seems that you desire to remain ignorant sadly. You do you.

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.

This is not true, but I'm tired of correcting you. I trust are readers have been able to keep up. You do you boo.

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

Of course.

Then you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution and you need to look up both terms and educate yourself. Words have meaning and you are using them incorrectly.

Origin of species cannot be separated from origin of matter, life, and intelligence.

The Origin of Species is a book. This is why I'm asking you to define what it is you think you mean when you use those words.

And so any such origin by evolution is self-contradictory ideology, of pseudo-scientists,

Only if you are the pseudo-scientist. Let me demonstrate:
or-i-gin
/rj()n/
noun
1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

ev-o-lu-tion
/evlooSH()n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Please especially see the parts in bold. It really should not be as hard as you are making it.

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.

Hey readers! RDB thinks they formed a valid reply! I know, right!
I don't know what to say, just read it for yourselves.

Their is proof of primate species evolved into different primates, not into human beings.

Please supply this proof.

[Clownboat]

There is no proof that humans evolved from primates.

RDB, should there be proof or should there not be proof? Keep in mind all you have learned about doing science. You have to take your religious thinking cap off, or it will get in the way of doing honest science.

Again, proof is for math and whiskey and you should be thankful for this because otherwise all I have to do is ask you for proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Then, when you fail to offer this proof I request, should I feel justified or would you rightly correct me that proof is for math and whiskey?

You may have what you would consider to be evidence for this event, but just because I point at you and laugh at you for not having PROOF does would not make your argument incorrect. I would either need to address your evidence or accept it. It would be childish of me to ignore your evidence because you don't have PROOF to supply and that is all you seem to be doing here. It's weak!

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

RDB... should there be PROOF that humans evolved from primates if we are doing actual science or should there be evidences that suggest such a thing?
The scientific method is the best method for arriving at truths that we have, it's not dogmatic and actually requires that things are not considered proven and need to remain falsifiable. Is it valid that RDB keeps complaining about a lack of proof?

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.

Then it is on record that RDB agrees that human evolution is suggested to be real. What complaints are left? Que a request for proof!

<snipped circumstantial evidence talk for being unnecessary>

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

RDB... should it be proven or is proof discouraged in science? Take a minute and think about all that you have learned recently.

[1DoubtingThomas]

YOUR EXISTING THREAD HEREIN:
There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

RBD, your pseudo-christian embarrassment is shown below in this thread of yours because the posts of mine, that you are sheepishly running away from in the name of Satan, are listed below:

Post number 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 473, 474, and 480!





.

[Clownboat]

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.

It actually worked nicely and even got you to see the point I was making (that you are asking for something that cannot be supplied). The analogy was a success.

A better analogy for primates evolving into humans, is the theory of ET's seeding life on earth.

Nope, the language analogy is much better.

They are both unproven possible alternatives to creation of life on earth, and man created apart from all animals.

I thought we were going to pretend that your preferred god concept created life in order to allow us to then discuss what happened after? Why don't you want to honestly discuss evolution? Why can you not pretend that your god concept created life? What is stopping you?

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.

This failed to account for the Neanderthal DNA that is found in most humans.
Clownboat: "How do you explain the Neanderthal DNA found in most humans?
RDB: "All humans have human DNA".
Clownboat: "Offers a gentle pat on the head".

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

I'm talking about the fact that we have Neanderthal DNA. What are you on about?

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

Yes, Neanderthals were human, specifically Homo neanderthalensis. They interbred with Homo sapiens which is why you most likely have Neanderthal DNA in you.

Only humans with human DNA. Only Neanderthals have Neanderthal DNA.

Please show that you speak the truth because modern humans do have Neanderthal DNA.
What does it mean to have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA?
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/unders ... erthaldna/

The same as only humans have human blood, and only animals have animal blood.

What you say is silly because humans are animals.

an-i-mal
/anm()l/
noun
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

You are at war with the English language.

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.

This is another example of where you should have punched yourself in the face. Why do you refuse to learn about how the mechanism we call science works?

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.

Hey readers, you happy with this explanation coming from a person that does so much rejecting of science? I find it wanting and juvenile myself.

How does earth get any life, or living beetle?

Remember our agreement? We are going to pretend that your preferred god concept created life so we can then discuss evolution which has nothing to do with how life originated. Just another thing you seem unwilling to learn sadly.

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.

Do you not know your own story? Two of each kind on the ark. The bible doesn't mention any creation events taking place after the flood. This means that within about 6,000 years, we went from one kind of beetle to over 400,000 different species of beetle. And that's just beetles and would require crazy fast evolution that would make biologists blush.

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

Did you punch yourself? We are not talking about origin of life, but evolution. I wish you knew the difference.

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

Holy monkeys! You really need to Google origin of species by evolution! Obviously no one is claiming that species evolved because of a book and no one claims that life began via 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 have not brought up Marx. This is nothing but a weak distraction.

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.

What you believe is not interesting. Humans are primates, because it has been demonstrated. Imagine how weak my argument would be if all I was doing was spouting my beliefs and not demonstrating the truth of them.

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:

What are you on about!?! Please show that you speak the truth.

<snipped a Bible verse for being irrelevant>

[RBD]

[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.

That's it? That's all there is to 'prove' evolution from reptile to bird? Factually speaking, all that's there is some isolated example of what appears to be a hybrid bird or reptile. Where are all the other transitional changes? Whatever happened to the good example of the evolutionary process for changes in human language? This single hybrid isn't a 'part' of a process, because there's no 'process' found. It's like saying a single case of provincial Latin spoken in Iberia, proves by itself alone, that Spanish must have evolved from Latin.

Without the concocted theory of an evolutionary process, which in this case doesn't exist, then the lone hybrid Archeopteryx would simply by that, a lone hybrid reptile or bird. Certainly not some supposed single link in a transitional chain, that has no other links. There must be at least two or three links to make a chain, not just one.

All we have from species evolutionists is a described 'process', that is never proven for any given species evolving into a whole newly different species. All we ever get are these isolated anomalies, that are said to be a link of a chain, that has no other links. "Hey, look! A hybrid reptile or bird! There it is, the proof of the evolutionary chain from reptile to bird or vica versa! Now, it's only a matter of time before we find the next link, and then the next, and then the next...But, in the meantime we can go ahead and declare, that reptiles evolved into birds!"

While the objective viewer only sees a single anomaly of a reptile or bird, the theoretical evolutionist is all agaga for the chain, that simply must be there. If this is the best they have, then there isn't any 'missing link', but many missing links. Like they say, so far as any evolutionary process is concerned, There's no there there.

The whole reason that the evolutionary speciation is theorized to be by millions of years, with many transitionary stages, is to make it plausible for people to accept, rather than simple creation of the species, such a birds and reptiles producing their own kind, not one another.

And the fact that all the evidence must be millions of years ago, provides convenient excuses for not finding the many necessary transitions. And then an isolated hybrid is declared an entirely process, that millions of years is still 'hiding'...It's built in job security for 'scientists', that are paid to keep searching. And of course paid for by gvt funding to ideological science depts.

[RBD]

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:

With consistent science, it's about both. With ideologues, it's only about one side. People cannot be an evolved species of primate, and primates not be people.

Afterall, an ape is an evolved species of primate, and yet no one has a scientific nor ideological problem with a primate being an ape. Ideologically speaking, the 'humans are primates' movement halts, if they ever say primates are people. That's why they refuse to say it.

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

Physical similarity does not make the same. A planet and moon are not the same. Calling one the other is false.

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

So, the things that make a primate, make a person? Then primates are people...And since many things that make a moon, also make the earth, then the moon is the earth...

The dust, rotation, orbiting, lighting, etc...that makes a moon does not make the earth. Because of the one thing that makes the earth not a moon, Atmosphere and Wind. So also for the one thing that makes a person not a primate, Spiritual intelligence and Faith:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #495]

Without the concocted theory of an evolutionary process, which in this case doesn't exist, then the lone hybrid Archeopteryx would simply by that, a lone hybrid reptile or bird.

A "lone hybrid" reptile or bird [Archaeopteryx].....a "lone hybrid" whale with legs [Ambulocetus].....

And remember these guys?....
https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-snake- ... on-1473003

There seems to be a pattern here.

All we have from species evolutionists is a described 'process', that is never proven for any given species evolving into a whole newly different species. All we ever get are these isolated anomalies, that are said to be a link of a chain, that has no other links.

As I've pointed out, certain conditions have to exist for remains to fossilize. Still, when you look at the distribution of fossils in layers of earth you see that more modern-looking specimins are found in younger layers. That suggests transitional changes.

And the fact that all the evidence must be millions of years ago, provides convenient excuses for not finding the many necessary transitions. And then an isolated hybrid is declared an entirely process, that millions of years is still 'hiding'...It's built in job security for 'scientists', that are paid to keep searching. And of course paid for by gvt funding to ideological science depts.

Wow----you've reduced evolutionary science to the plot of a cheap novel?

Even with an incomplete fossil record, there's still more evidence of evolution than there is of a snake using human language to talk to a woman in a garden.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #496]

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.

So, the things that make a primate, make a person?

This is about what makes a primate----not about what makes a person. The discussion of what makes a person is philosophical. What makes a primate is anatomical.

So also for the one thing that makes a person not a primate, Spiritual intelligence and Faith

Since being a person is philosophical and being a primate is anatomical, why can't a person be a primate?

[1DoubtingThomas]

.

RBD, the runaway from disturbing biblical passages relative to his brutal serial killer Jesus as god!

Once again, your pseudo-christian embarrassment is shown below within your own thread herein, where you are still sheepishly running away from my disturbing Jewish Christian Bible passages as listed below:

Post numbers: 435,460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 473, 474, and 480!


What your runaway status doesn't understand, is the FACT that this is a RELIGION DISCUSSION FORUM, and not a RUNAWAY FROM RELIGION DISCUSSION FORUM like you have shown the membership at your ungodly embarrassment!


In your running away from my direct posts to you as numerously shown above, can only preclude the following facts at your embarrassing expense in front of the membership, and especially the ATHEISTS:

1. YOU admit that I outright own you and your primitive and barbaric Bronze and Iron Age faith of Christianity! .... LOL!


2. You are too embarrassed to at least "try" and respond to my said posts as listed above because you are embarrassed about your Jewish god Jesus and you can't defend him!


3. You want to be known for at least something within this Religion Forum, and that is you want to be the Number One Runaway from your Jewish Bible and faith in Christianity!


4. You want to be known for creating blaspheme against your serial killer Jewish God named Jesus because you can't defend Christianity in my said passages listed above, but in turn, Jesus tells pseudo-christians like YOU to defend his faith, as shown below:

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)


5. Your Satanic Apologetic Books can't give you cogent responses to my said posts listed above, where you would not look intelligent looking in the aftermath!


6. YOU admit, that what you thought you knew relative to your Christian Jewish Bible and Christianity, until I easily BIBLE SLAPPED YOU SILLY, you really didn't know that much about it, and therefore you had to go into HIDING!


7. YOU as a pseudo-christian, want to set a record within this Religion Discussion Forum in how many godly literal posts you can Satanically run away from ..... LOL! (Don't worry, I am keeping track of all of them)



BRD, what you don't seem to realize is the FACT that you are a total embarrassment to Christianity and this Religion Forum for running away from very disturbing actual Jesus inspired LITERAL posts of mine, where you have gone into "hiding" and had to remain SILENT to them because of your BIBLE IGNORANCE!!!


BRD, Don't worry, I'll be adding more posts to YOU in correcting your Bible INEPTNESS, whereas you can in SHAME run away from these posts too! .... LOL!









.

[1DoubtingThomas]

^^^