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...)

[elijahpne]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Granted, for the sake of argument, that Genesis 1:1 is an incontrovertible fact, but does it necessarily mean that God could've not used the Big Bang or Cosmic Inflation, as proposed by Alan Guth, as the mechanism to kick-start the universe? The language of the scriptures allows for the possibility that God could've.

The Bible simply says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) but it does not comment on what exactly the process God used to create everything.

The above-mentioned theories would not necessarily contradict what is stated in the Bible. In fact, both the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theories, support the Bible's nonnegotiable contention that the universe had a beginning.

Referring to the Big Bang, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote in 1978: Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.

That flash of light and energy might well be what the late physicist Carl Sagan says in Cosmos : "At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations." He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as "the most awesome transformation of matter and energy [E=mc2] that we have been privileged to glimpse." Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

Genesis 1:1, however, would answer the really important question: Who caused the big bang?

Having said all of these, a caveat is necessarily in order.

"Of course, many scientists believe that the Big Bang was a spontaneous, undirected event that led to the self-arranging of particles of matter into stars and planets over a period of time. The Bible does not support that view but states that the formation of the universe was a direct act of God, whether he employed some sort of cosmic explosion or some other method of creation. " -g2015 October p. 8 "The Bible's Viewpoint | Evolution"
---
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by Gods word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #549]



EarthScienceGuy,

Now, as far as what created the universe, my belief in a creator God is not a problem existing without space, matter, or energy.

1. ^ Okay, so which primitive thinking Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Middle Age God in your way of thinking created the 13.9 billion of light years across universe, and compared to a God concept, how do you know it wasn't an "Outer Space Alien God" that created said universe?

Also, tell us why said God of yours needed to create such a vast and unfathomable universe of 13.9 billion light years in diameter, when he only created life upon planet earth, where all said God needed was our minuscule solar system?

EXPLAIN:

And that is my point: whatever it is that created the universe has to be able to exist without space, matter, or energy.

2. ^ You explicitly said a "Creator God" in proposition number 1 created the universe, and then you follow up in proposition number 2 by saying "whatever it is that created the universe ....." is a BLATANT CONTRADICTION, where you say you know who created the universe, and then you don't know who created it! .... How embarrassing can you get in front of the membership?!

Additionally, as usual, the Religionist like "EarthScienceguy" creates narratives with their own "Subjective Opinions" that turn into "Saturday Night Live Comedy Skits!" Therefore, show peered-reviewed articles from reputable scientific individuals where your said god concept had to be able to exist without space, matter, or energy!

EXPLAIN:

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.

3. ^ WRONG!!! Metaphysical naturalism is defined as in direct opposition to any primitive and barbaric godly belief systems, that unfortunately still exist today in the feeble minds of their believers! THINK, where individuals today take part in Metaphysical Naturalism in demeaning the aforementioned Religions of today, so it still exists today, where you said that it couldn't exist subsequent to the creation of the universe! ...... Duh!


EarthScienceGuy, do you want to "try" again in your treatise shown above for it to make at least a modicum of understanding next time? Yes?



THE ATHEISTS ARE AWAITING YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS POSED TO YOU, THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE!





.

[RBD]

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.

It follows from the history of evolutionary theory, which began as a pagan philosophy for life, animals, and men in an uncreated universe. It's a natural philosophy without creation.

With modern discoveries of partial evidence, the philosophy has elevated to scientific theory of evolution of the species, without creation.

Marx's Origin of the Species by natural selection, confirms the no-creation philosophy of classical natural evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does not necessarily argue against theistic creation

The pagan evolution philosophy was absent creation, for whom there was no theology for creation by an eternal Creator, living apart from a temporal universe with beginning.

science does not function to prove anything but to test falsifiable hypotheses and rule-out the ones that are disproved by the evidence.

This is theoretical science only, not the practical sciences.

Science does not function to prove what is already observable fact, such as gravity. Theoretical science only functions to explain how and why natural phenomena exist, such as gravitational theory. But, practical scientific theory seeks to prove what is presently unobserved as practical fact, such as the light bulb.

Evolutionary philosophy and theory is the latter. It's a philosophic theory still in search of complete practical evidence to prove it's a fact.

but new evidence was eventually discovered that logically compelled scientists to accept the falsifiable Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable explanation.

False. Some physical evidence searched for and found, became the means of accepting old evolutionary philosophy as a new scientific theory. It remains falsifiable in need of complete proof. Evolutionary theory comes up with theories about how and why it could happen, which is not the same as gravitational theory about how and why it does happen.

Trying to compare with theories about evolutionary theory, with theories about gravity, is either an ignorant or purposed ideological attempt to equate the theory of evolution with the fact of gravity.

The fact that various unfalsifiable creation claims preceded the falsifiable Theory of Evolution does not make theism the default explanation.

Not by age alone. However, it remains the most reasonable explanation for life on earth, than for pagan evolutionary theory without creation.

No one is saying there is no evidence for that old pagan philosophy, so that it can now be listed as scientific theory. However, the same evidence still speaks of creation as most reasonable. Afterall, the evidence criteria for creation is already met: Life, the species, and man on earth.

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.

False. The theory of how and why gravity works, is by ongoing scientific inquiry and experiment. The observable scientific fact is gravity.

The only observable scientific fact about speciation, is that it could be possible. Gravity is scientific fact. Evolution is only a scientific theory. Gravity can be experimented with. Speciation remains on an experimental theory. Unlike the light bulb, speciation is not yet proven in practice, neither by the fossil record, nor by present observation and experiment.

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.

False. Only ideological evolutionary theorists deny the theory of abiogenesis, is a theoretical origin of life by evolutionary process. They deny Marx's Origin of the Species by natural selection, as a theory of natural origin of life, and not just of theory of life evolving. Marx's title conforms to classical evolutionary pagan philosophy absent creation, and modern scientific theory replacing creation.

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

False. The ancient philosophy of evolution was absent creation, without any creation debate. The modern evidence-seeking theory must disprove creation by evidence, that can rule-out creation: A completed evolutionary fossil record from one species to a different species, where no creation of either species can be allowed.

The illogic is that any species of plant and animal, can reproduce a species after it's own kind, such as a fish from a fish, and an ape from an ape, that can no longer reproduce a species after it's own kind, such as a mammal from a fish, and a man from an ape.

(consider the logical problem of underdetermination).

Underdetermination is simple a lack of evidence to prove something is natural fact. Speciation therefore simply remains a philosophical and theoretical experiment, which can be a possible explanation for life and species and man on earth. The only problem of undetermined evidence, is for ideologues that want to claim and talk like the evidence determines it's proven fact, like gravity and the light bulb.

But for the Genesis creationist and classical evolutionist alike, underdetermination is not a problem at all: Each can presently believe one or the other is an explanation for life on earth, en lieu of any physical proof of one to disprove the other...

4. The burden of proof is satisfied by a falsifiable hypothesis when it survives all tests designed to try and disprove it.

A falsifiable hypothesis about something unproven, continues the test of proving itself by complete evidence. The burden of proof is on the theory to be concluded as natural fact.

There is no designed test to disprove speciation, except by proving creation. And vica-versa.

You have been informed on multiple occasions that the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate ideas,

And you have been equally informed, that the only difference between evolutionary abiogenesis and biogenesis, is one is theory for life beginning by an evolutionary process, and the other is a theory for continuing of life by evolutionary process.

You have equally be instructed on what abiogenesis is: A theory for life beginning by an evolutionary process. You have equally ignored this defined process for Abiogenetic theory.

and your demand for proof is not applicable because the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where that expectation is completely illogical.

It is a necessary demand with ideologues declaring the evidence determines speciation is natural fact.

[RBD]

because someone could believe it describes the possible process a god might use to create diversity among and between species.

Theistic evolution only began with some Catholic fathers, due to unbelief in Bible Genesis.

In fact, there are probably more theists who accept the Theory of Evolution than those who don't on account of such logic.

In fact, it's only the pseudo-creationists, that argue for theistic evolution. And it's on account of some unbelief in Genesis creation.

From Anaximander to Lamarck to Marx to Sagan and today, there is no classical evolutionist of the species, that gives lip-service to any creation. It's a philosophy and theory absent of creation.

This does not include converted neo-creation evolutionist. Rather than becoming Genesis-believing skeptics of speciation, that only forsook intellectual honesty in order to play both sides.

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,

False. Not to the pagan natural philosophers of evolution. Pagan 'creation' myths and philosophy never included a Creator apart from the known universe. They believed in an eternal living universe without beginning, with primordial deities shaping natural and living things. Some theorized a natural prime Mover, but not the Creator.

Creation by an eternal Creator set apart from the universe with a created beginning, is only known to readers of Genesis. No other book of 'creation' is about a Divine Creator set apart from His creation. They are all universal deity myths, that are part of a uncreated universe without beginning.

Ideological evolutionary theology, which is only argued by pseudo-creationists, is more akin to Hindu's Brahma god, than it is the home of evolutionary natural philosophy among the pagan Greeks.

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.

Only precludes anyone believing Genesis as written, and the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein. It also precludes classical evolutionary philosophy and theory, that is without creation.

I suppose the Hindu believers in Brahma could liken the natural god's changes to the uncreated universe, as evolutionary theism. In any case, anyone claiming Bible creation theism, is not believing the Genesis Creator, but as you say, some other pagan god, like Brahma.

The unfalsifiable creation claim is not the default position, even if the falsifiable Theory of Evolution were to be disproved.

Genesis creation is the only default position, for creation by a Creator. Evolutionary theory is not a default position, unless proven without doubt, that it is as natural as gravity and sunlight.

The default position is agnosticism when there are no falsifiable hypotheses available to test.

Try telling that to the pagan philosophers of evolution of the species.

Agnosticism is the only default position of people who only want to believe what they can see, smell, touch, and taste. Which is more ideological than practical in life.

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.

False. Since theistic creation is only theorized by Genesis, then any theistic evolution is proven false by Genesis. The only theistic evolutionists, are those who don't believe Genesis, while claiming creation by Genesis.

Their ideology is produced from self-contradicting unbelief, not from any evidence to the contrary of Genesis.

While new evidence could potentially emerge in the future to falsify the Theory of Evolution

So far, creation is not yet proven by physical evidence.

or at least demonstrate where it needs revising,

It certainly needs proving.

the fact that such an outcome has not yet occurred provides a sufficient justification for scientists to provisionally accept it.

Sure. Just not creation scientists, that believe Genesis.

Given these categorical differences, the falsifiable Theory of Evolution and the unfalsifiable theistic creation claim cannot be made to fairly compete with each other.

Tell me about it. No classical evolutionist tries to change evolutionary philosophy and theory, into an ad hoc creationism. Only pseudo-creationists not believing Genesis, try to also play the evolutionist.

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

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.

Maybe you can, but not any Genesis creationist, nor classical evolutionist.

Maybe the Brahma god Hindu could agree with theistic evolution. But that's still only for an uncreated universe, where the universe itself produces it's own evolutionary deity.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #614]

Since theistic creation is only theorized by Genesis, then any theistic evolution is proven false by Genesis.

Nonsequitur. Genesis can be wrong.

[1DoubtingThomas]

Genesis creation is the only default position, for creation by a Creator. Evolutionary theory is not a default position, unless proven without doubt, that it is as natural as gravity and sunlight.

^^^ RBD,
Yes, I know, you are probably so tired of running away from my post number 555 in your own thread that was directed to you, that you couldn't answer regarding my Creation narrative, therefore, I thought I would save you the time to look it up, and bring it to you in this post where you can't thank me later, okay?



"RBD'S" CHRISTIAN CREATION ALTERNATIVE AND DEFAULT TO EVOLUTION, NUMBER ONE, ..... ATHEISTS, STOP LAUGHING!:

Adam and Eve had 3 sons, Cain, Able, and Seth, now, take a deep breath in what that biblical axiom implies! READY? ..... It precludes the fact that to populate the world with Jesus being God of his Jewish Creation, Adam, plus his three sons, had to impregnate their own mother Eve!!! ...... Can you spell NCESTUOUS IMPREGNATION of Eve? Sure you can .... Ewwwwwwwww .......

Jewish Christianities FOUNDATION is that the Bible Runaway "RBD" has to accept that "INCEST" between family members is the impetus of the world's Creation! This precludes that Eve's life ambition was to be able to sit up, or for her to have girl children to grow up so Adam and his 3 sons, or other sons as well, would ease up the pain that poor Eve had to go through in being continually impregnated by her male family members to populate planet earth!!!

Yes, I can see why the pseudo-christian "RBD" has to run away from my biblical axioms like shown above, but when he does, he can talk against evolution until he is blue in the face where it is all for naught for him, because of the Default to evolution that he has to accept shown above. Which for him is embarrassing and schizophrenic to say the least in the 21st Century! .... But, what did the Atheist expect from the barbaric and primitive thinking Christian Jewish Bible in the first place? .... Priceless!


Can you spell "CHRISTIAN CREATION BIBLE MYTH?" ...... Sure you can! ......








.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #612]

1. ^ Okay, so which primitive thinking Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Middle Age God in your way of thinking created the 13.9 billion of light years across universe, and compared to a God concept, how do you know it wasn't an "Outer Space Alien God" that created said universe?

Also, tell us why said God of yours needed to create such a vast and unfathomable universe of 13.9 billion light years in diameter, when he only created life upon planet earth, where all said God needed was our minuscule solar system?

The "who" that created the universe is not important when one is having a discussion with someone who adheres to Comtean philosophical principles. God is really big. The who is doubly not important. When someone cannot even express the tenets of what they believe, however, anyone can google metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, gaslighting is the proper response when they understand how absurd their position is. You still have not stated your belief about how the universe was created.

Boltzmann brain, computer simulation, these really do not explain creation; they push the time of creation back. If time is a clock that never stops running, then how does one cross infinite time to get to this point in time?

Therefore, show peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific individuals where your said god concept had to be able to exist without space, matter, or energy!

Space, matter, time, and energy are all part of this universe. Really, there are articles in peer-reviewed journals about how we are part of a computer simulation. There are also peer-reviewed articles that propose that reality does not exist.

If God did not create the universe, what did?

[Clownboat]

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

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
I acknowledge that you deny known incontrovertible facts about what we know about populations changing. They still do what you fail to understand though. This is incontrovertible as you have been shown.

Animals being many different species reproducing after their own kind, has always been known by man on earth.

Yes, animals reproduce with their own species. That is, until a population of that animal has changed enough to get to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the starter population. I'm guessing you don't know what ring species are.

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

Correct. Since we don't yet understand how life came about, everything is still on the table as a possible explanation. I'm even trying to get you to pretend that your preferred god concept did it, but you don't seem able for some reason. Why is that?

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.

This is nothing but a defense mechanism invented in order to try to maintain a preconceived religious belief. That evolutionists are ignorant of evolutionary theory is an empty and silly claim.

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:

Hey readers, is this RBD showing that they speak the truth or them retracting their claim?

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.

Nope. Gods, fairies, aliens and whatever else can be dreamed up are on the table. I acknowledge that you reject this, but your understanding of evolution is lacking.

Anyone proposing a creation-evolution philosophy and scientific theory, is making up their own ideological and imaginary version.

Since we don't know how life began on this planet, any hypothesis can be imagined to be the cause. Your preferred god concept included, you just don't believe that your all powerful god concept could have created life and then the process of evolution for said life to remain on this planet for some odd reason. Why couldn't an all powerful God do this? You need to supply an answer to this.

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...

It has been demonstrated that a respected evolutionist has presented their arguments for theistic evolution. You deny this at your own debating peril.

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?

Others just like me silly!

Or, do you believe in the Creator?

Due to the fact that we don't know how life began, creators cannot be ruled out. In this thread alone I try to get you to pretend that we know your preferred god concept did it, but that seems to much for even you to swallow for some reason.

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's attempt to explain life,

Person A: How do you explain life emerging on this planet?
Christian: I believe my God is responsible for abiogenesis.
Person A: You can't though, because RBD said so.
Christian:

I acknowledge that you falsely believe that no Christian could use their preferred god concept to explain life.

A God could have created first life.

So, you could believe in a Creator, afterall.

I wish your reading comprehension was better. I have even been trying to get you to pretend that we know your preferred god concept created life in an effort to get you to then discuss how life has change.

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

I read this claim and don't see any follow up. Why is that?

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.

Your ability to be wrong is astounding! Nothing here is accurate or deserves a reply.

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.

And yet you are unable to envision an all powerful god concept that created both life and a mechanism for it to adapt to changes within the environment it lives within. If creation is an explanation as you say, then why is this not an option? You are the only one here ruling anything out (trying to slay us with irony) and then you pretend others are doing what you are doing and then whine about it. It's laughable.

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?

Are you able to make this sentence make sense?

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

That doesn't follow, it also doesn't further debate, but I'll leave it here for all to see the kinds of claims you make.

I've never heard anyone suggest evolution is just about changes in population.

I acknowledge that when you were informed about this, you failed to grasp it. You really should look up 'descent with modification'.

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.

This failed to address that this is only a problem for those that hold to some ideological creation story, such as yourself.

Only modern evolutionary theorists compete with creation,

Nope. How life began and how life changed once it existed are two separate things. You have learned this and still fail to understand sadly.

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

And what if they quasi-creation evolutionists are correct? I acknowledge that you have slandered them prematurely.

<snipped an odd off topic Bible verse>

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

I acknowledge this slander and see no reason to respond to it. Try debating please.

Right. Expert in pretending is the answer.

I assume our readers have noted the amount of slander and empty claims being put forth by RBD.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #612]



.
EarthScienceguy,

YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR POST # 609 SPECIFICALLY STATED: "Now, as far as what created the universe, my belief in a creator God is not a problem existing without space, matter, or energy.


THEN YOUR FOLLOW UP QUOTE IN YOUR POST #617 IS HEREWITH: The "who" that created the universe is not important when one is having a discussion with someone who adheres to Comtean philosophical principles. God is really big. The who is doubly not important.

You are backpedaling now, when you specifically stated in your post # 609 that it was a "CREATOR GOD" that created the universe. Then in your post #617 shown above you say that the "who" that created the universe is doubly not important! This notion of yours leaves the door wide open that it might not be a Creator God but something else that created the universe! Therefore, your assumed knowledge on an ABSOLUTE of what created the universe goes severely wanting at your embarrassing expense!

EXPLAIN; WITH LESS JABBERWOCKY THIS TIME:

You still have not stated your belief about how the universe was created.

I don't have a belief, because I don't really know what created the universe. Whereas, you should take the same position that I have to save yourself from further embarrassment with your contradicting and nonsensical diatribe in trying to explain "what" created the universe!

Boltzmann brain, computer simulation, these really do not explain creation; they push the time of creation back. If time is a clock that never stops running, then how does one cross infinite time to get to this point in time?

Huh?! If your once again jabberwocky states that the Boltzmann brain computer sim doesn't explain creation, then how can this system push creation back in time? HELLO, anybody home today, NOT!

EXPLAIN, AGAIN, WITH LESS JABBERWOCKY:

You still have not stated your belief about how the universe was created.

I'll use your notion shown herewith, "The "who" that created the universe is not important ........ The 'who' is doubly not important."



THE ATHEISTS THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAND UP COMEDY ACT ...... LOL!

.

[RBD]

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's a pagan natural philosophy for variety of animals with man at the pinnacle,. With 1800's discovery of suggestive evidence, the pagan philosophy has become qualified as a scientific theory.

It is observed scientific fact which is how we made so much progress medically just in the last century.

False. It is not observed scientific fact, proven by complete evidence. Without such definitive proof, creation remains only a pagan philosophical and scientific theory for explanation for life, the species, and mankind.

So long as creation can explain the isolated varieties of animals, and man apart from animals, then evolutionary speciation remains only a possible alternative theory to creation.

If you accept micro evolution then you've no reason to reject macro evolution as they both are a result of the same processes.

Observable micro evolution within a species, is not unobserved macro evolution speciation.

Micro-evolutionary changes within a species, is not macro-evolutionary change from one species to another, that can no more interbreed.

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.

Exactly. Thank you. Science is not based upon similarities alone, but in proven identifiable facts. The earth and moon are similar in shape, movement, and substance, but the earth is not the moon. The same for fishes vs amphibians, man vs ape.

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.

Exactly again. It's classical evolutionary philosophy and theory later named speciation. The significant part is changes in a species, where no more inter-breeding takes place.

That is where the fossil and biological record fails to satisfy a natural evolution from one species to a different species, rather than simple creation of a new species.

This is where speciation becomes a logical non starter: How can one seed of species not reproduce after it's own kind? How can one seed and species produce another kind than it's own, that can no longer reproduce after it's former kind?

The fossil record never shows the completed incremental changes necessary from apple tree to orange tree, nor fish to amphibian. And science cannot prove nor produce by experiment, an apple seed becoming an orange seed, and fish sperm becoming amphibious sperm...When either of these things are verified in the fossil record, or in practice, only then can we declare speciation is proven fact of nature, without any need for creation.

Creation becomes useless as an explanation for life and the species, because it's proven unnecessary for life and the species. And likewise, so long as creation is useful explanation for all life and species, then evolution is unnecessary for any new species.

Then it can take hundreds of millions of years before the two look unrecognizable from each other.

First, it's not a matter of 'looking' unrecognizable, since similarity is not the scientific basis for determining ancestry. The question is exactly when does one tree and animal seed reproduce another tree and animal, without the same seed. The logical and scientific question of proof, is not about 'how long', but exactly when at any point in time it happened.

Arguing 'how long' one species producing another, is a diversion from when does one species produce another. What good is it to argue how long the ancestral tree 'took' to produce an offspring, when there is no parent producing such an offspring at any given time.

It's all about process and not about production, like bureaucratic meetings without practical results. When exactly did any fish species reproducing fish species, actually produce an amphibian species, that only reproduces amphibians.

Pick one point in those millions of years, when the long dreary evolutionary process finally draws to an end, and one year becomes evolution's factual reality.

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.

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.

This is simple creation and continued reproduction by one's own seed, after it's own kind of species. No need for a theoretical process of millions of years, that has no definitive end. That of course includes when exactly that ape reproduces a man, that can no longer reproduce an ape.

Scoffing that off as too simplistic, is the old evolutionary process, wrapping itself in millions of years of mystery, where that great change certainly must occur at some point in time. Just exactly when remains the million year mystery...And million dollar question.

Declaring speciation a scientific fact, is like declaring self-aware AI a fact, while experimenting with computerized AI. Or, macro-evolution a fact, because of micro-evolution. The great divide has not yet been filled, and is only crossed by philosophical and theoretical faith alone.