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...)

[Jose Fly]

This is like when you see a person on a street corner yelling at the fire hydrant because he thinks it's trying to control his mind.......

.....and then watching a handful of other people go up to him and try and have an actual debate.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #563]

Natural creation is not created to live forever. That's the Creator's choice, that people have been questioning from the beginning. Not animals.

Is there anything here which isn't just confirmation bias?


Now, if it left equine descendents.....that explains where it went.

I see. 'Evolutionary' metamorphosis. A confused philosophical effort to explain why all supposed intermediary species, are all extinct.

Every species is an intermediate between an earlier evolutionary stage and a later one. Evolution also moves in wavy lines rather than straight ones, shifting environmental factors bringing about a variety of results. Of course, some intermediate species can seem more dramatic to us----like the lungfish and the platypus.


You begin with the conclusion you want to reach----that the Bible is "unerring". Circular thinking.

The same for those saying the Bible is lying about the Creator. The fact of so many people like you trying to prove error in the Bible, is proof that inerrancy proves it can be true.

Inerrancy in any book proves that it could be true, but that doesn't make a book inerrant just because you want it to be.

The proof is made known by the Book itself. Which is something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on, to prove whether all the writers over all the time are reporting the truth, or erring with lies.

The Book of Mormon, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Tao Te Ching.....those are all something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on. Do you assume that they're all inerrant because of that?

I was once an honest critic, now I'm convinced it's true, and remain that way even more so, every time a possible error is disproven by a possible explanation.

If someone came up with a "possible explanation" for every possible error in one of those other books, would it convince you that the other book was inerrant?


How do you know that our spiritual intelligence didn't evolve along with our animal bodies?

The same way I know evolution of the body is not proven.

I'm beginning to suspect that your real problem with evolution is that you want it to be disproven but you can't disprove it.

I also see how intelligence is dumbed down by ideological belief in something unproven, speaking as though it were fact. Everyone of your arguments are circular by conceiving yourself that unproven evolutionary theory is a fact. You never say 'if'. You no longer have the intelligent compacity to conceive the possibility of anything else.

I've been arguing from evidence, and pointing out how strong the evidence is. I've been asking questions about how spontaneous creation is a better explanation than evolution. In turn, you've quoted Bible verses at me as if the text you want to justify somehow justifies itself. That's the circular arguing.


A snake's ability to use human language remains unproven...

I know, animals are not humans, because humans are not animals.

That doesn't address the issue of a snake using human language in Genesis.

When you produce the complete fossil record of an evolutionary process from matching one species to matching another, so that creation is not an explanation for them, then I can believe what I see and could touch.

Even if the fossil record were complete, what would stop you from simply dismissing every evolutionary stage as a separate animal simply because they don't "match"?

From one evolutionary stage to the next, animals are different. They change. That's what evolution is.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #570]

Therefore, when anyone argues about an almost match between human and primate chromosomes, short by one, then it can still be said, that man is created with one less chromosome than all primates, which makes all the difference between all humans and primates. Which biologically supports the fact, that all men are created with the spiritual intelligence, that no animal has.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that we have one less chromosome pair than other primates because we have a fused pair, biologically indicating that we used to have as many as they have. However you want to attribute our "spiritual intelligence", the biological indication is that our distant ancestors were more like the great apes of today than they were like us.

[RBD]

Then there's the rarely spoken problem of evolutionary theory, that does not to explain how one seed can reproduce another seed, that cannot reproduce it's own seed. How can one species reproduce a species, that no longer can reproduce after it's own kind:

Gen 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It's good to acknowledge natural reproduction of all trees, animals, and people on earth. It's not good to believe an unnatural theory, that cannot possibly prove itself naturally. And it's interesting that while some people will try to believe an animal can somehow reproduce by it's own seed, another animal not after it's own kind, such as an ape at some 'gradual' point reproducing a man. No one wants to argue that an apple tree seed can reproduce an orange tree, with seed reproducing after it's own orange kind.

This the unnaturally inherent problem of the theorized speciation process: At exactly what point in gradual time, does the fish actually reproduce a reptile, or reptile a bird, that cannot reproduce a fish or reptile? We see how evolutionary theory is all about an incremental theoretical process, that is never exactly proven in the fossil record, because it cannot naturally reproduce at any point a species, that can no longer reproduce after it's own kind. It's akin to the geometric graph of opposing infinites: Either side of the axis, the separate graphs continually move closer and closer ad infinitum, but never actually meet. So it is with the theory of seed evolving into another not after it's own kind, and a theorized fossil record, that never makes an exact match. Which of course includes all the biological and genetic similarity-studies...

In fact, if a species can reproduce another species, that cannot reproduce itself, so that a reptile is now a bird, and no longer a reptile. And it's all theorized by natural selection, where there is no guiding Creator, then why can't a bird ever reproduce a reptile, that now can no longer reproduce a bird? With only natural selection by chance, and no guiding hand, why does evolution of the species only go in one certain direction? Why can it not by unguided natural chance reverse itself? Afterall, since the reptile and bird are reproductively connected , so that one is not without the other, then why not evolution of the species in reverse? For that matter, why is the archaeopteryx necessarily a bird-like reptile 'evolving' into a bird, and not a reptile-like bird evolving into a reptile? Or, naturally evolving by chance between a common reproductive species, back again?

Only because theoretically-speaking, not by any natural law, one natural direction of evolutionary chance is more 'believable', than a reverse direction, where the bird then evolves gradually to reproduce a reptile.

The simple fact is, that theoretical speciation is an unnatural process, that is claimed to be by natural selection, without a Guide. No seed of tree, animal, nor human can naturally reproduce not after it's own kind. And there is no fossil record, nor biological proof of such an unnatural thing happening by chance in a natural world. Especially not in reverse again, not even by chance. A natural selection by chance, cannot forbid any such chance of direction between any two species with common reproduction in the past, so also in the future.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #564]

Far more than a theory never producing the necessary evidence to prove it's own hypothesis. I.e. you believe in evolutionary theory, because it's theorized against creation.

I believe in evolutionary theory because of the evidence of it.

So far you've avoided evolutionary theory's own demand for a completed fossil record, which is in order to replace creation of the species as an explanation.

A completed fossil record isn't necessary to support evolution; there's plenty of evidence in the living world [snakes with the remnants of legs, fish with proto-lungs, our own second pair of hands].....

As was explained in the chromosome video, if we had 23 pairs of UNfused chromosomes, that would prove that we didn't evolve with the great apes. Our fused chromosome #2, with an inactive centromere corresponding to chimpanzee chromosome #13, indicates that we did evolve.

You're isolated examples do not prove speciation in detail, and so do not replace creation of their species. There was a bird-like reptile and fish-like mammal on earth. Great. The Creator is inventive.

As I suspected, with a complete fossil record you would still dismiss every evolutionary stage as an "isolated example".

If humans are another animal, like dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans, like dogs and cats.

Another granddaddy of all nonsequiturs. Dogs aren't humans, cats or giraffes. Cats aren't humans, dogs or armadillos. Your attempts at satire aren't landing.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #563]

Natural creation is not created to live forever. That's the Creator's choice, that people have been questioning from the beginning. Not animals.

Is there anything here which isn't just confirmation bias?

No more than when someone says humans use another animal language.

I normally don't surmise arguments based upon my belief, but I figured your habitual practice, would not object. But then, who said ideologues are consistent and fair in arguments?

The fact remains that the theory of evolution has not met it's own demanding goal of ruling out creation in any species. And so, any remaining explanation of creation is still reasonable.

Now, if it left equine descendents.....that explains where it went.

I see. 'Evolutionary' metamorphosis. A confused philosophical effort to explain why all supposed intermediary species, are all extinct.

Every species is an intermediate between an earlier evolutionary stage and a later one. Evolution also moves in wavy lines rather than straight ones, shifting environmental factors bringing about a variety of results.

That's the theory of speciation, that's never proven. Nor has anything to do with some sort of metamorphosis of species, that may not now exist, but are not extinct, since they 'live on' in another more evolved species today.

It's akin to some evolutionists, that think man is evolving from people of ancient days. They no longer exist, but live on in us, to a lesser degree...Or, just good old pagan worship of ancestors, that live on as the family household gods within.

Which with evolutionists, must also include primate ancestors of old....

Of course, some intermediate species can seem more dramatic to us----like the lungfish and the platypus.

Of course, the necessary incremental process of reproducing another species not after it's own kind, is never found. And the isolated dramatization of species can be by creation of a dramatic Creator.

The proof is made known by the Book itself. Which is something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on, to prove whether all the writers over all the time are reporting the truth, or erring with lies.

The Book of Mormon, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Tao Te Ching.....those are all something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on. Do you assume that they're all inerrant because of that?

You're assumption of assuming something without testing and proof, is based entirely upon your own habit of unproven ideological assumptions.

I was once an honest critic, now I'm convinced it's true, and remain that way even more so, every time a possible error is disproven by a possible explanation.

If someone came up with a "possible explanation" for every possible error in one of those other books, would it convince you that the other book was inerrant?

Sure. Why not? As with the Bible, it means it can possibly be true. However, the Bible proof is much more demanding, and therefore conclusive, since it's written by many writers, over much time, who must prove their inerrancy between them.

And the book of Mormon and Koran are already ruled out, by claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, and Jesus Christ, and yet contradicting the God of the Bible, and Jesus Christ.

How do you know that our spiritual intelligence didn't evolve along with our animal bodies?

The same way I know evolution of the body is not proven.

I'm beginning to suspect that your real problem with evolution is that you want it to be disproven but you can't disprove it.

It's a fact, that your real problem with evolution is that you want to believe the theory, without proving it. And it's obvious that your reason is to reject creation, not to prove any theory.

And it's also a fact, that you resent your own theory's high demand of detailed consistent gradual proof, because you want to believe it, as much as possible, in order to reject creation of life and the species.

The factual dilemma is, that unless evolution completely proves itself beyond doubt in a completed incremental fossil record, then it continues to disprove it's own purpose of proving there is no possible creation of life and the species.

I've been asking questions about how spontaneous creation is a better explanation than evolution.

That's the whole inherent problem in originating an evolutionary theory, to disprove creation. Creation doesn't have to be proven, nor give a better explanation. Creation only needs to remain possible, en lieu of evolutionary theory's failure to prove itself to it's own satisfaction.

You're problem with evolutionary theory as originally constructed, is that you don't want to acknowledge, that the burden of proof is on the modern theory, that is constructed in order to rule out creation. You want to believe the theory as is, because you'd like to rule our a Creator altogether. Or, you are arguing for another evolutionary theory, that allows the Creator some hand in life. Either way, you don't care about proving it, as much as dismissing or sidelining the Creator form your own mind.

In the meantime, you can also continue to talk like speciation is a proven fact, in order to further convince your own mind. And others also, if they have a mind too.

Not me. I'll continue to speak of creation and the Creator, as the logical possible explanation for the facts at hand...

A snake's ability to use human language remains unproven...

I know, animals are not humans, because humans are not animals.

That doesn't address the issue of a snake using human language in Genesis.

That hasn't been the purpose. It does address how animals not using human language, further proves humans are not animals, because animals are not people.

If you want to ask about a Bible event of an animal talking in human language, then I can address the serpent and the ass...

When you produce the complete fossil record of an evolutionary process from matching one species to matching another, so that creation is not an explanation for them, then I can believe what I see and could touch.

Even if the fossil record were complete, what would stop you from simply dismissing every evolutionary stage as a separate animal simply because they don't "match"?

Produce it and see. In the meantime, if it were there, you would have already produced it, instead of isolated quasi-species, that could have been created that way.

You can keep theorizing about the theory all you want, and go ahead and dismiss the Creator from your own mind, but it doesn't prove He is ruled out from all life.

From one evolutionary stage to the next, animals are different. They change. That's what evolution is.

False. Not with the obvious gaps necessary to prove modern theorized evolution beyond doubt, that rules out any possible creation of the species. One different animal similar to another animal, can certainly be one created animal similar, yet different, from another animal.

You are now stating your own quasi-evolutionary theory, that allows for creation of the species 'supplemented' by evolution. Which is the ideological result of wanting any theory against a Creator, even if it allows Him a limited part in life and the species.

Only an incremental process of evolving difference, reproducing the next and the next, until reproducing the next species, can possibly dismiss the creating Hand. But then natural reproduction can't possibly, at any one time, reproduce a species, that cannot reproduce after it's former kind.

Only by creation can one species be produced for the first time, that cannot produce after another kind.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #576]

Is there anything here which isn't just confirmation bias?

No more than when someone says humans use another animal language.

Who has said that?

The fact remains that the theory of evolution has not met it's own demanding goal of ruling out creation in any species.

Evolution is put forth as the most likely explanation of past and current animal life. It isn't about competition.

And so, any remaining explanation of creation is still reasonable.

Then the goddess Nu Kua fashioning the first humans from clay is still reasonable.

That's the theory of speciation, that's never proven.

....while the never-proven snake capable of human language gives you no pause at all.

Of course, the necessary incremental process of reproducing another species not after it's own kind, is never found.

The results are easy enough to find.

And the isolated dramatization of species can be by creation of a dramatic Creator.

That seems to be your standard procedure----use the evidence of evolution for your confirmation bias in favor of spontaneous creation.


The Book of Mormon, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Tao Te Ching.....those are all something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on. Do you assume that they're all inerrant because of that?

You're assumption of assuming something without testing and proof, is based entirely upon your own habit of unproven ideological assumptions.

Which assumption is more idelogical----my acceptance of the evidence of evolution, or your insistence that the Bible is "unerring"?


If someone came up with a "possible explanation" for every possible error in one of those other books, would it convince you that the other book was inerrant?

Sure. Why not? As with the Bible, it means it can possibly be true. However, the Bible proof is much more demanding, and therefore conclusive, since it's written by many writers, over much time, who must prove their inerrancy between them.

If the Bible has proven itself inerrant, why do its apologists have to settle for "possible" explanations for its inconsistencies?

You come across as accepting of another book's claim of inerrancy, but you still elevate the Bible as "much more demanding, and therefore conclusive". The necessity of inerrancy doesn't depend on how many writers a book has, and just because a book with many writers is made available doesn't mean that it should automatically be presumed inerrant.

And the book of Mormon and Koran are already ruled out, by claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, and Jesus Christ, and yet contradicting the God of the Bible, and Jesus Christ.

Then the Christian scriptures are ruled out for claiming to speak for the God of Israel while contradicting the Tanakh.

It's a fact, that your real problem with evolution is that you want to believe the theory, without proving it.

Evolution is not without evidence, and I would say that distinguishes it from a snake which could use human language.

And it's also a fact, that you resent your own theory's high demand of detailed consistent gradual proof, because you want to believe it, as much as possible, in order to reject creation of life and the species.

Then it must be a fact that you resent the absence of any evidence of a snake capable of human language because you want to believe it as much as possible in order to reject the evidence of evolution.

It's presumably also a fact that you resent our fused chromosome pair, which made our 24 great ape chromosome pairs into 23 and made us into a different primate. 23 pairs of unfused chromosomes would have been a clear sign that we didn't evolve, but that sign isn't there.

The factual dilemma is, that unless evolution completely proves itself beyond doubt in a completed incremental fossil record, then it continues to disprove it's own purpose of proving there is no possible creation of life and the species.

Then your factual dilemma must be that unless that human-language snake completely proves itself beyond doubt in any fossil----or living----record, then it continues to disprove its own purpose of proving there is no possible evolution of life and the species.


I've been asking questions about how spontaneous creation is a better explanation than evolution.

That's the whole inherent problem in originating an evolutionary theory, to disprove creation. Creation doesn't have to be proven, nor give a better explanation. Creation only needs to remain possible, en lieu of evolutionary theory's failure to prove itself to it's own satisfaction.

In past discussions, I've used the example of an alternative explanation for gravity----the existence of innumerable, invisible, immaterial beings known as Downpullers, which latch onto things and pull them to the ground. Since Downpullers are invisible and immaterial, we can say that they exist even if we don't see them or feel them because we can observe what they do----they pull things down.

For that reason, by your logic, the existence of Downpullers doesn't have to be proven. We can simply attribute what we observe to their presence and that excuses us from considering a more plausible explanation for why things fall. And if some "ideologue" comes along spouting off about gravity being created by the warping of space-time by mass, we can dismiss all that talk as "unproven".....while touting our beloved Downpullers as "possible".

You're problem with evolutionary theory as originally constructed, is that you don't want to acknowledge, that the burden of proof is on the modern theory, that is constructed in order to rule out creation. You want to believe the theory as is, because you'd like to rule our a Creator altogether. Or, you are arguing for another evolutionary theory, that allows the Creator some hand in life. Either way, you don't care about proving it, as much as dismissing or sidelining the Creator form your own mind.

Your problem with evolutionary theory is that it doesn't allow for your preferred concept of a Creator.

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.
---Carl Sagan


From one evolutionary stage to the next, animals are different. They change. That's what evolution is.

False. Not with the obvious gaps necessary to prove modern theorized evolution beyond doubt, that rules out any possible creation of the species. One different animal similar to another animal, can certainly be one created animal similar, yet different, from another animal.

That kind of thinking is exactly what would keep you from accepting a full, complete fossil record even if one were presented to you. You've already made up your mind that evolution is false, and that convinces you that there can be no evidence of it. That's what makes you reject the evidence we do have.

Only an incremental process of evolving difference, reproducing the next and the next, until reproducing the next species, can possibly dismiss the creating Hand. But then natural reproduction can't possibly, at any one time, reproduce a species, that cannot reproduce after it's former kind.

It isn't about dismissing the "creating Hand"; you have to get past that mental block.

Sun
Bun
Fun
Fur
For
Far
Fat
Mat

Here I went from "sun" to "mat", two words with none of the same letters, by changing one letter at a time. That's kind of how evolution works. The changes are slow and slight, but they add up over time.

[Clownboat]

'Humans are animals' is an ideology of an unproven theory, not an isolated recorded event. And, it's stated as fact for all people.

Let's once again attempt to test your words for accuracy and honesty. Please feel free to do the same with any claim I make.

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.

Which part of this definition do you reject?

Readers, who here is the ideologist?

I'd say the one denying biology. I mean, every time we take a dump we're reminded of our animal nature.

Reminded of our body's nature. For those whose body is all there is in life, dumping is all they have.

Every time we take a thought for more than this life, we're reminded of our spiritual nature, apart from the animal kingdom.

RBD, let's once again attempt to test your words for accuracy and honesty. Please feel free to do the same with any claim I make.

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.

Which part of this definition do you reject?

Readers, who here is the ideologist?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

You have glossed over, or skipped, this response many times now. It's not going away until you finally address it. In honor of posts 149 and 358, the meat and potatoes of our exchange have 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.

Until you debunk P1) and/or P2), your goose is cooked. The debate is over. The Bible is wrong.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #570]

Therefore, when anyone argues about an almost match between human and primate chromosomes, short by one, then it can still be said, that man is created with one less chromosome than all primates, which makes all the difference between all humans and primates. Which biologically supports the fact, that all men are created with the spiritual intelligence, that no animal has.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that we have one less chromosome pair than other primates because we have a fused pair, biologically indicating that we used to have as many as they have. However you want to attribute our "spiritual intelligence", the biological indication is that our distant ancestors were more like the great apes of today than they were like us.

Already answered enough times.