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...)

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #552]

Yet you have doctor visits cause you need your biological brain to live. If you truly thought you didn't need your animal body to live you wouldn't protect it so or nourish it. But it sure feels good to take comfort in a magical way to ease insecurities about death simply by believing in myths!

If you truly believe you need your animal body to live at all, you would take no comfort in death at all, but prolong it as along as possible, no matter the cost, pain, and suffering to yourself, or others:

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Nourishment and medical help is not to stop death at all, but only to ease pain and suffering beforehand.

Well they do stop it temporarily, you must of overlooked that fact. As far as your assertion goes a python round to the temple is more effective at easing the 'pain' of death, and efficient if that's all you're worried about. But of course it's not all you're worried about, you simply want to live now, just like anyone else. Cause deep down you know there is nothing to fairytales. Agreed?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #600]

So, you can't tell me who has said it?

Do you agree or disagree, that humans use another animal language, rather than that of other animals like dogs and cats? Answer for yourself, and I'll give you the post #.

If you have to ask if I believe it, I must not have said it.

Canines use canine languages. Felines use feline languages. Humans use human languages. Is that what you want me to say?

[Clownboat]

Ideologues use deception to indoctrinate: 'Animals evolve' can mean something as simple as humans physically adapting to environmental surroundings. A change of height, skin color, physical shape, etc...but still human, which is not the theory of evolutionary speciation.

Animals that evolve from one species to a different non-interbreeding species, is not a proven fact at all. All that is given are isolated examples of mutation, or another unconforming species. Which can be easily explained by creation, without all the necessary incremental changes before and after, from one species to another.

This failed to address what was actually said: "That animals evolve is an observed fact"

The theory that best explains the theory of evolution, is evolutionary theory, which is all it is in fact: A theory supplemented by more theories to explain the theory, not life and the species.

This failed to address what was actually said: Animals evolve and the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have to explain this fact.

False. Quasi-revisionist evolutionists, are either unwittingly, or purposely ignorant of evolutionary theory's origin of species: to explain life and the species without creation.

Therefore, the theory itself, and it's own demand of complete evidence, cannot accommodate creation.

Please show that you speak the truth or retract this empty claim for being incorrect. Show you are correct and I'll amend my thinking. You up for the challenge?

No respected evolutionist indulges in some layman ideologue's alternative, that evolution is only a supplement theory accompanying creation. That also goes for respected creationists, not indulging in creation with evolution.

Demonstrably false.
See Francis Collins. He even wrote the New York Times bestseller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he advocates theistic evolution and describes his conversion to Christianity.

The two cannot accompany one another, since creation is instant and specific, with nothing of it's kind produced before it, while evolution is always a change from something before it.

At this point, I think you have your head so far in the sand that you will not correct your thinking, but I trust our readers will if they didn't know this already.

In fact, not only does evolution of life and the species demand an eternal universe without beginning

Evolution doesn't demand this. Fairy farts coalescing in space could have created the universe, which would have a beginning and that would not affect how life changes on this planet.

In reality, not dishonest land, the Theory of Evolution isn't involved with how life began,

False again. Evolution must be of life, if it is to be of the species. Otherwise, creation begins all things, including at some point a theorized evolution, that now has no purpose nor usefulness, since all things are already created in life and the species.

I acknowledge that you fail to grasp that your preferred god concept could have created life on this planet, while also allowing for populations of animals to change over time after this had taken place. I trust our readers are able to grasp this simple concept.

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's attempt to explain life,

False. A God could have created first life. Evolution only is about how life (populations) change. I acknowledge that you are not able to grasp this, but I trust our readers are able to.

The bastardized theory of creation

Just leaving this here for all to see.

is an ideologue's doublemindedness:

It has been demonstrated that you are the ideologue here by your consistent failure to explain what part of the definition of animal that you disagree with. Your particular ideology is that humans are not animals even though it has been demonstrated that we are. You fail to supply where you disagree with the definition in order to strictly and inflexibly adhere to your preconceived belief.

Wanting to believe in animal speciation, especially humans from primates, and also in a Creator creating one to evolve into the other, which is not creation of the humans, but only of the primates.

Correction, this is only a problem for the ideological creation story you hold to. It is not a problem for competing creation stories.

This form of hybridization first corrupts the definition of evolution.

Let's test for this shall we? Please supply your definition of evolution so we can then see who is corrupting.

The Bible speaks of having a form of religion, that's only ideological in nature. So also now with a form of evolution.

Who cares what the Bible says on the matter? Seriously. I bet you would have made a good Muslim had you been born elsewhere on the planet. You would just hold to a different ideology.

In this thread alone I have requested many times now that RBD pretends that we know that their preferred god concept created life

The only proven pretense here, is a pseudo-evolutionist preferring his own god created concept of life, followed by evolution of the species.

What a dumb reply. My claim is true no matter what other pretense you imagine up.

Unless now, there's ideological creation without the Creator? A creation creating itself?

There are all sorts of options for how life may have come about. We actually don't know how life first began though. Could have been your preferred god concept for all we know, but that still has nothing to do with evolution.

It's a fact that some species are extinct. That some species change within themselves to adapt to natural surroundings.

Yes, as we have been informing you, it is a fact that populations of animals change. That is evolution.

Anything else is only evolutionary theory to displace creation of life and the species.

Please explain to me why an all powerful god concept cannot create life and then a mechanism for it to adapt to changes within the environment it created said life in. Why could an all powerful God not do this?

Just waiting for you to walk into your own personal version of creation-evolution. Creatolution? The Creator creating life and evolution of the species, or creation creating itself with life and evolution of itself...

Can anyone make sense of this? What am I walking into?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #600]

So, you can't tell me who has said it?

Do you agree or disagree, that humans use another animal language, rather than that of other animals like dogs and cats? Answer for yourself, and I'll give you the post #.

If you have to ask if I believe it, I must not have said it.

You won't answer, because you know you could have said it. An ideologue will say anything that comes to mind, when dodging an obvious inconsistency in their personal ideology, especially the one about humans being animals, but animals are not people. Since you know you do play dodge-ball from time to time, you don't know for sure what you say from time to time.

Canines use canine languages. Felines use feline languages. Humans use human languages. Is that what you want me to say?

It doesn't matter what you say, since as an ideologue, you never allow yourself to answer plainly anything honest at the moment, because you don't what all you've already said, nor what you might need to come up with in the future.

There's evidence in the fossil record of a snake capable of producing human language?

No more than humans capable of producing another animal language.

[bluegreenearth]

The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

That doesn't logically follow. The Theory of Evolution does not necessarily argue against theistic creation because someone could believe it describes the possible process a god might use to create diversity among and between species. In fact, there are probably more theists who accept the Theory of Evolution than those who don't on account of such logic.

They remain unwittingly, or knowingly ignorant of the theory's own original purpose against creation, and the resultant necessary demand for complete evidence, so as to prove itself and replace creation. And so, they get perplexed/offended about that continued demand, when all they offer is sporadic examples, that creation can easily claim explanation for. The demand 'for more', is therefore not from critics alone, but originally from the theory itself.

Whether there was ever a demand for complete evidence to prove the Theory of Evolution or if that is just a misinterpretation is irrelevant because, as it is properly understood today, science does not function to prove anything but to test falsifiable hypotheses and rule-out the ones that are disproved by the evidence.

The purpose of any falsifiable scientific theory is to tentatively serve as a reasonable explanation for something observed in our external reality. The unfalsifiable creation claim may have previously served as the most persuasive explanation for the observed diversity of species on this planet at the time, but new evidence was eventually discovered that logically compelled scientists to accept the falsifiable Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable explanation. The fact that various unfalsifiable creation claims preceded the falsifiable Theory of Evolution does not make theism the default explanation. Furthermore, recognition of the Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable scientific explanation for species diversity did not and does not preclude anyone from believing a god was responsible for initiating the evolutionary process after having created the first biological life.

Here is what the objective evolutionist must submit to, when talking about his own theory:
1. The theory is not organically deduced from complete evidence, like that of gravity. It originated as a theory alone, in search of complete proof.
2. The theory is made as a direct counter and replacement to any creation of life and species on earth.
3. The theory's own purpose therefore produces it's own demand for complete incremental evidentiary proof, not just isolated examples, which can still be claimed by creation.
4. The theory's own purpose, which is to disprove creation, therefore has the burden of proof against creation. Since creation is already satisfied as an explanation for life and the species, by the fact of life and the species on earth.

Corrections:
1. The Theory of Gravity was not deduced from complete evidence. It originated from a falsifiable hypothesis and remains falsifiable as scientists continue searching for the disconfirming evidence that would disprove it.
2. The Theory of Evolution only tentatively serves as a reasonable explanation for the observed diversity of species on this planet, not as an explanation for the emergence of the first biological life.
3. The purpose of tentatively serving as the most reasonable explanation for the observed diversity of species on this planet does not demand complete incremental evidentiary proof because that expectation would be illogical (consider the logical problem of underdetermination).
4. The burden of proof is satisfied by a falsifiable hypothesis when it survives all tests designed to try and disprove it. The unfalsifiable creation claim is not the default position, even if the falsifiable Theory of Evolution were to be disproved. The default position is agnosticism when there are no falsifiable hypotheses available to test.

Conclusion: The purpose of the theory cannot be isolated/separated from the demanding proof. Almost enough evidence, like similarity studies, is not sufficient to prove evolutionary speciation, and therefore replace creation. Neither do endless scenarios of the incremental process, aid in proving the theory. In fact, each new similarity study, and accurate description of the necessary process, only highlights the fact that differently breeding species, fish and reptiles, humans and primates, do not ever match one another, nor does any sporadic evidence prove the theory over creation.

So long as creation remains a reasonable option for all the evidence at hand, then evolution remains only a theorized replacement for it. Until there is completely proven physical evidence, both creationists and evolutionists alike can reasonably claim either explanation for life and the species. And no objective creationist nor evolutionist can claim either has been proven physically, which would defacto disprove the other.

It's only the ideologues, who talk like one or the other is a proven physical fact. 'Humans are animals, evolved with primates', is an ideological statement, not a proven fact. Which further proves itself as ideological, by the personal illogical refusal to say animals are human, and primates are persons.

You have been informed on multiple occasions that the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate ideas, and your demand for proof is not applicable because the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where that expectation is completely illogical. If you don't understand the problem of underdetermination, then seek clarification and educate yourself accordingly. Otherwise, please consider this your last warning before I am compelled to conclude that you are just here to troll rather than acquire an accurate understanding of the opposition's argument. An intellectually honest interlocutor should feel compelled to argue in good-faith.

Now, first and foremost, you need to recognize that the theistic creation idea is an unfalsifiable claim and understand how its categorical difference from the falsifiable Theory of Evolution renders any attempt at having them fairly compete against each other problematic if not logically untenable:

The theistic creation claim is not disprovable by any quantity or quality of evidence. In other words, we have no reliable mechanism by which to ever discover if the theistic creation claim is false. Furthermore, even if all the available evidences were supportive of the theistic creation claim, its probability of being false would still not be reduced. Under these circumstances, evidence of any type can serve no logical function in the evaluation of the theistic creation claim because it is unfalsifiable. So, what is to be done with an unfalsifiable claim that is necessarily exempt from critical analysis? What happens when there are multiple claims that are all equally unfalsifiable and seeking to serve as the single most reasonable explanation for species diversity? How is a competition between multiple unfalsifiable claims to be fairly and reasonably adjudicated without a reliable way to rule-out any of them?

Unlike the unfalsifiable theistic creation claim, the Theory of Evolution is reasonably disprovable by obtaining the necessary disconfirming evidence that scientists would expect to find if the claim is false. In other words, there is a reliable mechanism by which scientists can discover if the Theory of Evolution is false, even though the problem of underdetermination prevents them from ever proving it is true. As such, if other falsifiable claims seek to compete with the Theory of evolution as the single most reasonable explanation for species diversity, it is possible to disprove the ones that are false where they can be subsequently ruled-out of the competition. The Theory of Evolution is currently the only falsifiable explanation for species diversity that continues to survive all the attempts at disproving it. While new evidence could potentially emerge in the future to falsify the Theory of Evolution or at least demonstrate where it needs revising, the fact that such an outcome has not yet occurred provides a sufficient justification for scientists to provisionally accept it.

Given these categorical differences, the falsifiable Theory of Evolution and the unfalsifiable theistic creation claim cannot be made to fairly compete with each other. The Theory of Evolution can only fairly compete with other equally falsifiable claims because of the possibility to rule-out the candidates that are demonstrated to be false through experimentation. The theistic creation claim doesn't even qualify as a fair candidate under these circumstances because there is no reliable way for any experiment to determine if it is false or not. So, I'm not really sure how a competition between the falsifiable Theory of Evolution and the unfalsifiable theistic creation claim could be fairly adjudicated. It seems the best we can do is acknowledge the Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable falsifiable explanation while also acknowledging the theistic creation claim as a logically possible unfalsifiable explanation.

[Carnivalfaces]

RBD wrote: Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:48 am
The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

The Theory of Evolution explains the origin of species and the abundant variety of life. It is observed scientific fact which is how we made so much progress medically just in the last century. It does not explain life. If you accept micro evolution then you've no reason to reject macro evolution as they both are a result of the same processes. In science a divergent species isn't determined cause one generation looks so different from all the prior generations, that's a childish understanding of evolution. It is when groups of mutated off spring on a genetic level can't procreate with the others in a species anymore; but can procreate amongst themselves, this is when a new species is considered to have emerged. Then it can take hundreds of millions of years before the two look unrecognizable from each other.

Now that I have given you the simplest explanation of evolution one can give, can you tell me where it argues against creation like you say it must in order to be true? It's a discipline that doesn't argue theocracy but attempts to explain nature.

[RBD]

Ideologues use deception to indoctrinate: 'Animals evolve' can mean something as simple as humans physically adapting to environmental surroundings. A change of height, skin color, physical shape, etc...but still human, which is not the theory of evolutionary speciation.

Animals that evolve from one species to a different non-interbreeding species, is not a proven fact at all. All that is given are isolated examples of mutation, or another unconforming species. Which can be easily explained by creation, without all the necessary incremental changes before and after, from one species to another.

This failed to address what was actually said: "That animals evolve is an observed fact"

This fails to observe that animals evolving, is not proven fact.

Animals being many different species reproducing after their own kind, has always been known by man on earth. After horticulture, taxonomy is one of the first recorded sciences made by man on earth:

Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field

Creation still remains an explanation for life, species, and man.

False. Quasi-revisionist evolutionists, are either unwittingly, or purposely ignorant of evolutionary theory's origin of species: to explain life and the species without creation.

Therefore, the theory itself, and it's own demand of complete evidence, cannot accommodate creation.

Please show that you speak the truth or retract this empty claim for being incorrect.

Finally admitting you don't know for sure, otherwise, you would show in the origin and promotion of evolutionary theory, how that it accompanies creation. It doesn't:

The history of evolutionary theory first begins as natural philosophy, not a scientific theory based by observable evidence. A pagan natural philosophy of the universe, life, animals, and humans, without creation. This is the origin of evolutionary theory: No creation.

This includes latter evolutionary scientists, seeking evidence for the philosophy, in order to finally label it a scientific theory. Beginning with Lamarch and Marx, who were not creationists. Classical evolutionary philosophy began without any creation for the universe, and can only continue as a scientific theory, without any creation of life, species, and man.

Anyone proposing a creation-evolution philosophy and scientific theory, is making up their own ideological and imaginary version. And that only comes from so-called creationists, not from any classic evolutionist.

Apparently except one: you.

No respected evolutionist indulges in some layman ideologue's alternative, that evolution is only a supplement theory accompanying creation. That also goes for respected creationists, not indulging in creation with evolution.

Demonstrably false.
See Francis Collins. He even wrote the New York Times bestseller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he advocates theistic evolution and describes his conversion to Christianity.

Demonstrably proves the point: An evolutionist first converted to Christianity, and then arguing theistic evolution. Pseudo-creationists accommodating classical pagan evolutionary theory, with a creative spin added in...

So, other than you, who else claims to be an evolutionist, that is not a confessed believer in the Creator, who also allows for the possibility of a Creator?

Or, do you believe in the Creator?

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's attempt to explain life,

False.

What? That it's not an attempt to explain living organisms evolving from inorganic matter? Or, that it's not the evolutionist's explanation? Don't tell Sagan that. He was not a creationist.

A God could have created first life.

So, you could believe in a Creator, afterall. You're not an evolutionist arguing for creation, but a wanna-be possible creationist arguing for evolution.

However, there's now a problem with your possible enlightenment

When discussing evolution in debate, I would suggest that you pretend that your god concept created life

Has your possible conversion been recent? In the past, you would have mocked you, as you do me, for suggesting a God could have created life.

Which is all I've been saying: that creation is still an explanation for life, species, and man. Because classic evolution has not proven itself sufficiently to rule out creation.

Are you now possibly converted to creation, or as an ideologue arguing your own version of evolution, you forget what you say from time to time, when making up something to say at some time?

When personal ideology is the purpose, then personal integrity is not the goal.

Evolution only is about how life (populations) change. I acknowledge that you are not able to grasp this, but I trust our readers are able to.

True. I've never heard anyone suggest evolution is just about changes in population. It's called demography. It applies to both people and animals, just not at the same time.

Correction, this is only a problem for the ideological creation story you hold to. It is not a problem for competing creation stories.

Pagan universalists did not theorize evolution to compete with creation. They never considered creation as an option.

Only modern evolutionary theorists compete with creation, both in debate and in seeking the evidence.

Only quasi-creation evolutionists compete with creation and evolution at the same time:

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

In this thread alone I have requested many times now that RBD pretends that we know that their preferred god concept created life

A God could have created first life.

I would say you're the expert, but in what? Self-contradiction? Pretending to debate? Quasi-conversion?

Unless now, there's ideological creation without the Creator? A creation creating itself?

There are all sorts of options for how life may have come about.

Right. Expert in pretending is the answer.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #604]

Do you agree or disagree, that humans use another animal language, rather than that of other animals like dogs and cats? Answer for yourself, and I'll give you the post #.

If you have to ask if I believe it, I must not have said it.

You won't answer, because you know you could have said it.

I know I could have said it?

If I said it, show me where.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #549]


Oh my!

In your revealing quote above, you forgot to mention what allegedly created the universe that is approximately 7.7 BILLION light years in diameter?

First, the observable universe has a radius of 13.9 billion light-years. Then, the additional distance that must be added to the observable distance depends on what you believe.

Now, as far as what created the universe, my belief in a creator God is not a problem existing without space, matter, or energy. He created space, time, and energy. And that is my point: whatever it is that created the universe has to be able to exist without space, matter, or energy. This is impossible in the metaphysical naturalistic belief system. If there was a time when this universe did not exist, then space, matter, and energy did not exist. It is at the creation of this universe that metaphysical naturalism beliefs can no longer exist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #561]

No, there is insufficient evidence available at this point to warrant a confident belief in any positive claim about the universe being eternal or not.

This universe is not eternal; that is my point. However, that has to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be eternal. The debate is not whether or not there is something eternal, but what it is that is eternal.

Those are proposed hypotheses, not beliefs. If any of those hypotheses are unfalsifiable at this point, then there is no point in debating them.

If they are unfalsifiable, they are beliefs by definition.

In fact any proposed unfalsifiable natural cause would necessarily be excluded under methodological naturalism for the same reason.

That was my point. The cause of the universe is dependent on what you believe. Any belief in anything existing outside of this universe has to be a belief because the laws of physics stop at the edge of this universe. Thank you for agreeing with me.