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...)

[POI]

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.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #496]



.
RBD, the RUNAWAY from Atheist's post to him!

Well, it is being proven beyond any doubt, that you cannot defend your primitive and barbaric thinking Bronze and Iron Age Death Cult of Christianity when members challenge you upon said faith!

Therefore, you are no more a Christian than the Muslim Osama Bin Ladin was, because with me alone, you cannot even "try" to address my direct posts to as in my number 499 post within your own thread!!!





.

[RBD]

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.

The only difference is between how life begins, and how life evolves. Evolution must account for both, else there's no beginning of life by evolution, but only creation of life, with theoretical evolution of life following .

Therefore, the evolution of the species of tree life must be accounted for alongside the evolution of animal species. Refusal to do so, is another admission, that evolution is ideologically selective, and not science of natural selection of all life.

Willingness to believe in animal sperm somehow producing another animal with different sperm, such as the reptile into the bird, is far-fetched at best. But nowhere near as unbelievable as one tree's seed producing another tree with different seed, such as the apple into the orange.

And which tree evolved by abiogenesis first? What was the First Tree producing all the seeds of ancient tree lineage? The tree of abiogenetic life?

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

See [again] video in post #288.

And we see another well described process of evolution, like that of language evolution. The science of evolution is not only the science of physical similarities alone, but also the science of theoretical 'processes' alone. Evolution is the science of processes made up for proof, that never comes. The processes are there, but not the practical evidence.

And yet, if such a random natural event of abiogenesis takes place, then why is it not repeated? Why doesn't the chance event not chance to occur again? Why only billions of years ago, where it can never be proven? Why not by chance to be observed? Or, scientifically manufactured? Afterall, it's all natural, which makes it all repetitive. Nature that does not repeat itself, is not natural, but creative.

Since the evolutionary abiogenesis process is by universal random chance, and not by limited creative design, then that process must occur more than once. The goal of SETI was not just to prove other life by planetary abiogenesis, but also to prove abiogenesis itself: The probability of an abiogenesis event by chance, is astronomical, but that's nothing compared to the impossibility of random abiogenesis being only an isolated one-time event. Especially not in the supposed unlimited universe without beginning, that abiogenesis demands.

Abiogenesis only occurring once on a planet, much less out of all the eternal universe, is not abiogenesis but genesis by creation. Life cannot only begin from inorganic material once, if it begins naturally by chance. Nature is always cyclic, not one time events.

One time creation of life on earth, can only be by a Creator, that prevents life by a repetitive abiogenesis evolutionary process. If the beginning of life from inorganic material is not naturally cyclic, then it's not natural but created. Nature's cyclic force can only be limited by a creative power apart from nature, not by nature itself. Random chance by nature cannot randomly limit itself to a one-time off chance event.

[RBD]

[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.

Personal ideology is humans are animals, but animals are not people. Or, are humans not people?

People have the same natural flesh of all animals, as well as similar physical characteristics to some animals. That's observable science, that also includes limited biological similarities.

But 'humans are animals', is a strictly ideological attack on people being created apart from all animals.

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.

Ok. There remains tell us that they were not human beings. Just another primate with similar physical characteristics of human people.

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.

No one says animals don't have distant similar physical characteristics to human people, nor distantly similar treatment of dead animals. Only humans religiously bury or burn our dead, if possible. Animals are not human people with spiritual intelligence for religion.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #503]



.
RBD, the RUNAWAY from Atheist's posts to him!

Do you need help from another pseudo-christian to address my post number 502 since you have been running away from its content for such a long time? In this vein, imagine Jesus as god watching you in disdain in not even trying to defend his faith, as shown in this passage herewith:

"Nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)

RBD, therefore Jesus as god is watching you RUN AWAY FROM AN ATHEIST where upon Judgment Day, you will have to give an account, at which time, you will be smelling sulfur from the lakes of fire in HELL!



RBD, should I earnestly plead for you to another pseudo-christian to try and help you to not RUN AWAY anymore from my godly posts? Yes? Therefore, who would you like to work with, let me have their name and I will message them, okay?

Thanking you in advance to your ungodly plight of not being a true Christian.




.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #503]

The only difference is between how life begins, and how life evolves. Evolution must account for both, else there's no beginning of life by evolution, but only creation of life, with theoretical evolution of life following .

Evolution doesn't have to account for abiogenesis because abiogenesis is the beginning of life and evolution is the development of life.

Therefore, the evolution of the species of tree life must be accounted for alongside the evolution of animal species. Refusal to do so, is another admission, that evolution is ideologically selective, and not science of natural selection of all life.

https://share.google/bUCmg9W6R03avIDQk

And which tree evolved by abiogenesis first?

How many times does this have to be repeated?

Abiogenesis is the beginning of ALL life----evolution is the DEVELOPMENT of life AFTER it begins.

Evolution is the science of processes made up for proof, that never comes. The processes are there, but not the practical evidence.

Evolution is the best explanation, and the practical evidence is in the fossil record and in our own bodies.

It certainly beats out evidence of a snake capable of talking to a woman in human language.

And yet, if such a random natural event of abiogenesis takes place, then why is it not repeated? Why doesn't the chance event not chance to occur again? Why only billions of years ago, where it can never be proven? Why not by chance to be observed?

The environmental conditions on early Earth were vastly different from the conditions present now.

Or, scientifically manufactured?

Because it would take so long [millions/billions of years].

Abiogenesis only occurring once on a planet, much less out of all the eternal universe, is not abiogenesis but genesis by creation. Life cannot only begin from inorganic material once, if it begins naturally by chance. Nature is always cyclic, not one time events.

Right----

"The variety of life on Earth is widely considered to have evolved from a single common ancestor, but it is possible that basic organisms emerged more than once, leading to multiple trees of life."
https://share.google/iClLVqxKWL7tFKn1k

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #504]

Personal ideology is humans are animals, but animals are not people. Or, are humans not people?

A definition of "animal" was given and humans fit that definition physically. What you're kicking against is the notion that humans are merely animals, which I myself am not putting forward. Humans aren't less human just because humans and "animals" evolved in the same way.


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

Ok. There remains tell us that they were not human beings.

Their remains tell us that they weren't homo sapiens [modern humans]----NOT that they weren't human.

Just another primate with similar physical characteristics of human people.

Another primate that ritually buried its dead.

No one says animals don't have distant similar physical characteristics to human people, nor distantly similar treatment of dead animals. Only humans religiously bury or burn our dead, if possible. Animals are not human people with spiritual intelligence for religion.

I'm pointing out a human characteristic exhibited by Neanderthal [ritual burial] and you're trying to dismiss it as "distantly similar treatment of dead animals", presumably because you don't want to acknowledge the hard scientific evidence that Neanderthal were human.

[RBD]

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

Of course it is, because you made it up!

I didn't make up the origin of the species by evolution. Marx the ant-creationist did that.

""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.""

The theory of evolution is a modern alternative explanation to life, instead of creation. The only previous explanations were creation of the universe, vs an uncreated universe without beginning. And the fossil record remains for creation, not evolution.

Since evolution is theorized to exclude creation, then the evolutionary process demands 3 things: Consistency of change, identifiable incremental change, and much time for change. If these demands are not met, then creation remains the only possible explanation. (If new life and species is verified, then uncreated universe and life without beginning is not possible.)

So far, the fossil record never confirms the necessary standard for evolution of life and the species, that could possibly exclude creation. The fossil record only produces apparently isolated examples of a species, like hybrids or mutations. By definition of singularity, they do not in themselves prove a detailed incremental process of change, from one species to another: Speciation. One off-fossil does not make many fossils of consistent change.

When the evolutionary process is proven in practice chronologically, by the necessary incremental fossil record, only then can we say speciation is a natural fact, like gravity, and not just another unproven theory without practical result.

Thankfully the Christians I know are for the most part honest people. I wish you were...

Obviously you wish everyone would just agree with you, and not point out the unproven record of evolutionary 'science'.

Gravity is proven, the theory explaining it is not

Now you're talking something completely different: Scientific theories about how and why a scientific fact exists, is not theories explaining how and why a theory may prove to exist. The former is theories about a fact, gravity. The latter are theories about a theory, speciation.

Gravity exists in nature. Speciation only exists on paper. Gravity has academic research. Speciation is just academic.

The sporadic fossil record speaks more for creation, than speciation.

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

This proves how ideologues are ignorant of the science they pretend to represent. Abiogenesis is the theory for origin of life by evolution, that gradually evolves over time from inorganic matter. It's just another necessary theoretical process for evolution, to try and explain how creation is 'not necessary' for life.

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

Then please stop pretending that evolution is credited with creating life.

'Crediting' creation of life by evolution is self-contradictory.

Evolution evolves what exists. If it doesn't exist, it is free from evolution/evolving.

Exactly, which is why evolution demands an uncreated universe without beginning, else evolution itself is a created natural process. Only in an uncreated universe without beginning, can evolution be an uncreated natural process.

Abiogenesis is not creation from nothing existing, but is an evolutionary process from something existing: Organic life from inorganic matter.

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.

Exactly. Evolutionists cannot allow for creation first, nor at any time. Then the theorized evolutionary process is proved unnecessary as an alternative explanation of life. The whole purpose of theoretical evolution of life and the species, is to counter creation of life and the species. In theory and practice, creation and evolution are anathema to one another.

No one can factually be a creation evolutionist, nor evolutionary creationist. Except only as a self-contradicting ideology. Which is the inherent nature of ideology over fact.

I asked you to stop asking for proof when discussing doing science

Spoken like a true ideologue.

Matth 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemnedfor of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

So long as anyone claims a theory is proven fact, then the objective observer will always demand factual proof. And an honest theoretician will demand the same of himself, to prove the theory is factually true in nature and life.

Ideologues object to the practical demand, because they only practice believing in theories, as though paper-theory alone were fact. Of course, speciation is in fact a theory, but it's not a proven fact in nature and life, like gravity.

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.

Are you then a pseudo 'creation evolutionist'? Is that why you have such Christian friends, that also want to play at believing Gen 1 and primate-human evolution? Or, do you leave out the 'humans are animals' ideology? Do you just fellowship in the academe of evolutionary 'means and process' theories? Speak interesting intellectual sweet-nothings in each others ears?

[RBD]

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.

More proof of ideology ignorant of it's own science. Abiogenesis is a theoretical evolutionary process. Abiogenesis is not a creation event, like Genesis. Neither is abiogenesis from nothing existing, but is a theoretically naturally evolved process from something existing: Evolution of life from inorganic matter.

If abiogenesis is not by evolution, then it is genesis by creation. If abiogenesis is not with evolution, then evolution is not with naturally gradual change: Evolution is not evolution. Such is the confusion inherent in any ideological argument without fact. (Since only the theory itself is important, then consistent logic, as well as grammatical definition, must be set aside, when the theory is itself threatened by fact and intelligence.)

Abiogenesis is the production of life. Biogenesis is the reproduction of life. Abiogenesis is not biogenesis, but both are academically theorized with an evolutionary process, and the gradual natural changing from one to the other: Abiogenetic evolution of life first, followed by biogenetic evolution of the species.

The theoretical objection is that evolutionary abiogenesis, where life is first produced from inorganic matter, is not evolutionary biogenesis, where life is produced from life. And so, abiogenesis is said not to do with evolutionary biogenesis.

However, that only holds true for any biogenetic evolution within the same species, and after it's own kind. The difference doesn't hold true for speciation, where the 'evolutionary' reproduction of the species is not after it's own kind, but the production of a whole new kind, that is no longer the same life.

I.e. the unproven gradual process changing inorganic matter into the first organic life, is akin to the unproven process of changing one life into another kind, where the life seed is no longer the same: Reproduction of it's own kind is not the event, but instead is production of the first new kind.

Abiogenesis from one thing producing a new thing, is certainly not the same as biogenesis, with one thing reproducing the same thing, but it certainly is the same as speciation, with one thing producing a new thing, that is not the same. The lie of biogenetic speciation is that it's only a reproduction of the same thing. It's not. It's theoretical first production of a new thing, the same as abiogenesis.

There is where evolution of life and speciation fall apart: it's not just a matter of not finding the necessary incremental practical proof of the event ever, but it's the theorized exact point in time when the inorganic becomes organic, and the one seed becomes another kind of seed, whether of fish to reptile, or apple to peach.

Evolution of life and species cannot allow for creation, simply because it cannot allow for an exact time of match, when one old thing is immediately now a whole new thing. That is scientifically and observably not possible, and is why the ideological evolutionist goes apoplectic over a simple demand to prove such a thing is possible without creation. Not only does the fossil record never satisfy the necessary incremental demand of evolution, but there's not a single point in time, where the 'evolved' match is seen. Just sporadic and isolated hybrids or mutations of the same thing.

I asked you to stop asking for proof when discussing doing science

Spoken like a true ideologue.

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

The Origin of Species is a book.

Spoken like a true ideologue again. 'Origin of species' is not real, but just an idea in a book.

No wonder they call the Bible a myth, when their own book is just imaginary ideas...

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.

Abiogenesis: life begins from inorganic matter. Evolutionary abiogenesis: the naturally changing process by which life begins from inorganic matter.

Genesis: Life begins from nothing naturally existing. Evolutionary genesis: No such thing.

[RBD]

There is no proof that humans evolved from primates.

RDB, should there be proof or should there not be proof?

Spoken like a true ideologue, where the only proof is needed in the mind.

Again, proof is for math and whiskey

And anything stated as a fact.

When I say God created the heavens and the earth, and man in His image, I state my faith. I do not state it as a proven fact. When someone says that humans are animals, and evolved from primates, as a belief, then we are on the same page. Then we can reasonably discuss the facts.

Until then, anyone stating such things as proven fact is only an ideologue who's only necessary proof is in their own minds. They are disqualified from any factual discussion.

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.

The proof I state is man's complete separation from the animal kingdom by our creative spiritual intelligence, and matters of faith and disbelief.

No one corrects the argument, but only insensibly argues against it:

1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

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

Exactly. Until then, only ideologues declare humans are animals, and evolved from apes...

The scientific method is the best method for arriving at truths that we have,

'Arriving at truths' is ideological pseudo-speak. Truth isn't 'arrived' at, it's proven by fact.

Scientific method is the only method to theoretically explain known facts, like gravity. Scientific method is the only method to factually prove what is only theorized. Scientific method is not a method, that proves a theory by theorizing about it. That's ideological method of madness.

Scientific method can also prove spiritual truth by practical fact: Man is separated apart from the animal kingdom by created spiritual intelligence. Only ideologues never 'arrive' at that truth, because they don't face facts.

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.

Suggested to be possible. Only ideologues suggest a possibility makes it real. The possibility is real, but only proven fact makes it real.

Ideologues don't know the difference between possibilities and realities, when they make possibilities a reality in their own mind. Ideological reality is not what is factually proven, but only what is possibly imagined.

There are facts, believers in facts, disbelievers in facts, and then there are ideologues whose facts are only in their minds...