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...)

[RBD]

Only unbelievers choose something other than what the Book says, because they don't believe the words of the Book.

It sounds like you are saying that people that don't believe a book, don't believe a book. I'm trying to figure out why you would say something so obvious and am worried I misunderstand you.

You miss the context. People claiming to be believers in a book, who also don't believe parts of the book, are also unbelievers in the book.

It's the nature of duplicity. It's confusing to people who believe the book, as to why they would join those who don't believe it. But they are certainly useful for the unbelievers, in order to say the book is false. That's why the honest unbelievers love to quote the pseudo-believers, whenever they can.

They think the help of duplicitous double-minded people somehow supports their case. Afterall, I would never go to an unbeliever to help me believe the Bible. No help is better than bad help...

These words of mine remain unadressed:
"According to religious promotional material that we call the Bible, some believers of this religious promotional material believe that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were a special creation just 6,000 years ago. Other believers of this religious promotional material do not believe this claim and accept evolution as being the best explanation."

I just addressed it a second time. Just think of those 'other believers' as the duplicitous double minded, that unbelievers like to quote.

I call them unbelieving 'believers'. Jesus calls them a sick lukewarm believers:

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

[RBD]

You can deny your own spirit and intelligence, that no primate has, and even that of others. But only your own is degraded and made brutish.

Now that is just silly.

Is it. What kind of human intelligence is it to say they are we have no more intelligence than primates? Or, when you say there is no complete difference between humans and primates, you're not including spirit and intelligence?

If so, then it's human spirit and intelligence that is the irreconcilable separation between man and beast on earth. Do you deny it, or agree? I mean, it's self-explanatory and provable: No animal on earth even thinks about it, much less would foolishly argue against it...

Information was provided to you (characteristics of primates specifically) and it is you that is denying it.

Of course, I deny that classical piece of ideological propaganda. What else do you call something based solely upon a presumption, without any provable fact? And yet, they teach as though it were fact? That's ideology, not science.

Do you know why you are denying primate characteristics? I do.

?? Who's denying primate characteristics? You? I don't deny primates nor their characteristics. Nor do I deny being human and our characteristics.

In just deny we and primates are the same. Afterall, they don't think, much less know, how to accept or deny anything, like we do.

[RBD]

No one says new stars don't form of gas, nor that the universe is expanding thereby. You're still missing the simple point: Just because the universe is expanding with new stars formed of gas, does not mean the universe began as gas alone, without stars yet formed.

You quoted this, but didn't actually address it. Why?
Copy/paste: "If gas can form stars now, why couldn't gas form stars as the universe began?"

No one says newborn stars weren't born from the beginning of the universe. The universe of stars just didn't begin as gas alone without stars.

Some gas without the universe of stars is something other than the universe. Some call it a gaseous hot ball. Which is fine, since something without evidence can be called anything. Like maybe a big nothing-burger?

The Bible says the universe began with stars formed all at once,.

You really have no idea how unimpressive these words are, do you?

The expansive universe of stars formed all at once, is not intended to be impressive, but only clearly and concise. As they say, Brevity is the soul of wit.

2Co 3:12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

Impressiveness is reserved for imaginative lies, that that are meant to impress by ever-expanding words or pseudo-science sprinklled liberally with scholar-speak.

Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings:

Imagine you are talking to people who have not made an idol out of the Bible for a minute.

Who I like to talk to is objective critics, that only want to hear exactly what the Bible says. And so, I extend that courtesy to all professing unbelievers.

If someone is an ideological disbeliever, who just doesn't want to hear it, then that's not my problem. If you don't want to hear what the Bible exactly says, then say so. I'll move on and not waste my time.

The Bible account has more direct evidence of the universal beginning of stars, that are already formed and shining light, simply because we see they are.

I'm sorry, but we understand how stars form. You can pretend that stars have always existed if you want, it matters not.

I'll go by the evidence what I now see. You can go by blind faith in something never seen nor proven, nor even spoken of, until after Hubble proved the universe is expanding.

Big Bangers are late-coming ideologues of the 20th century.

The back-azimuth theory of an expanding universe beginning in one gaseous place, is not provable, just because an expanding universe with new stars born of gas, is proven.

Just leaving this here for all to see.

Since we do see a universe of shining stars, and no one has seen anything different,

What the!?!
Are we now to deny the existence of asteroids, black holes, gas clouds, comets etc...?

Are we now to deny the existence of the universe of shining stars? Just because of asteroids, black holes, gas clouds, comets etc...?

then by our own sense of experience, we can intelligently accept that the universe began this way.

You need to use logic and reason. You can't just add the word 'intelligently' to a claim to make it actually reasonable. That is all you have done here.

Ok, then you unintelligently accept this universe of stars began another way unproven, unknown, and unseen.

Blind ideology, not intelligent reason based on what is proven, known, and seen.

It's only those who have no known intelligence otherwise, that must accept a gaseous place without stars, by blind faith alone.

Do I have this correct? You actually believe that it requires a person to have no known intelligence to accept a gaseous place without stars. Perhaps you are not aware that not all gas clouds turn in to stars?

No, you don't have the correct subject. No one is arguing about hot gas in the universe of stars today. The topic is about a time with no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

You need to stay on topic. Focus. I don't mind arguing the topic at hand, but I can't be redirecting people back on topic, who want to argue about something, that no one is disputing.

There is no evidence, record, nor observed knowledge of any time, when there was no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #83]

There is no evidence, record, nor observed knowledge of any time, when there was no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

Why must everything always have been as we observe it now? Just because we weren't here to see it when it was different? People believed that Earth was the center of the universe before Copernicus and Galileo looked----and thought----beyond what their mere physical senses told them.

And even if we interpret our level of awareness as divine, why must it be traced to Genesis rather than to some other story of divine origin?

[POI]

So, animals are people too?

This is not what I said at all. Speciation divides homo sapiens from any other species. You stated "humans are completely different from all other natural creatures on earth". I'm instead drawing more direct correlation, in that some other species also possess like traits to homo sapiens. When it comes to the topic of "morality", some other species also possess empathy, fairness, cooperation, and even a sense of justice. Do you disagree?

Natural instinct is not morality, because morality is a judgment of responsibility for actions.

Are the topics of a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice considered natural instinct (or) not?

Human-primate evolution is a viral ideology, that has attached itself destructively to proven biological evolutionary science. By promoting a false ideology of evolution, scientific evolution is unjustly tainted by association.

And yet, we have hard evidence that homo sapiens share a direct common ancestry with the great apes. Chromosome #2 is just the beginning of this direct evidence.

The ideological purpose of primate-human evolution is clear: To make humans only animals in the end.

Evolutionary biology has no "ideological purpose." Evolutionary biology is instead based upon following the evidence, which leads to facts. Alternately, evolution deniers represent clear "ideological purpose." Remember, many Christians accept evolutionary biology as fact, because they are earnest to follow the evidence where-ever it leads, while also still believing in a Jesus as their savior.

[POI]

There is no skeletal remains of men and women on earth before 6000 years

Yes, there is. "Cheddar Man" is a nearly complete skeleton found in Britain, dating back about 10,000 years. Aurignac skeletons were found in France, with some dating back to 10,000 years. "Kennewick Man" is a 9,000-year-old skeleton found in North America. "Mexico skeleton" was found in an underwater cave, dating to over 10,000 years ago.

nor civilizations established by man before 4000 years.

Some of the oldest Homo sapiens civilizations found are those dating back to around 300,000 years ago, primarily discovered in Africa, including sites in Morocco (Jebel Irhoud) and Ethiopia (Omo-Kibish).

[Difflugia]

I see. I'm wrong that people are obviously not primate animals,

Yes.

because the primate Christina says we certainly are animals.

It's scientific consensus to the point that it's basic biology.

People are animals too.

Yes.

Rather people are only animals in the end.

No need for a false either/or dichotomy. People are animals and people.

And since neither the Bible nor any sensible person believes animals are raised from the dead to be judged for their works,

Not supernaturally judged, no.

then neither do animal people.

Some do. Brains are funny things.

(Which wouldn't have anything to do with the ideology, that all people in the end are just animals too...)

What do you mean?

And since people are animals too, then animals are people too.

This is Affirming the Consequent, a logical fallacy.

Do all people calling themselves animals, also call animals people?

No.

If not, why not.

The whole logical fallacy thing.

Otherwise, people can't be animals, if animals aren't also people.

This is both logically inconsistent and factually wrong.

If A = B, then B must = A.

This is more set theory than identiy. A is a subset of B doesn't imply that B is a subset of A.

PETA certainly does believe animals are people too,

They don't.

and therefore have all the rights of animal people.

They think that despite not being people, many animals are conscious and can experience something analogous to human suffering. No animal that can experience suffering should be exploited. Even though that's a higher bar than most people afford most animals, that's hardly "all the rights" of people.

And not just the primate people, but all animals on earth are people with rights too. You see PETA people are not run amok with animals being people too, but rather are the honest people animals, who say all animals are people too.

To the extent that this even makes sense, it's false. PETA's position isn't that non-human animals are people, but that they nonetheless should be afforded the right to not be exploited.

The rest the animal people, who say animals are not people with rights, are bigoted hypocrites, that think they have some sort of 'people-privilege' apart from all the other less privileged animals on earth. They may be animals, but not that kind of animal...

Aside from your misconception about who are or aren't people, that's more-or-less right.

We have the ideology that people are animals stated as fact, but so far no evidence.

Well, I quoted a modern biology textbook. That's not a super high level of evidence, but considering that you've been lecturing me about what exactly what is and isn't evidence, I wouldn't expect you to start being so sloppy now. Maybe you could counter with some evidence. Countering a biology textbook shouldn't be a crazy high bar to hurdle, but I guess we'll see.

However, there is a shout out to people animals, that we are at least highly adaptive animals, though only animals in the end.

Not only animals. False dichotomy, remember?

This is called ideological propaganda sprinkled with salt.

Yes. That's what I'm trying to help you overcome.

The truth of human adaptability has nothing to do with the argument of people being animals.
It's a purposed insert to avoid an obvious insult: To wit, All human being are animals...

What?

It's classic propaganda technique 101: flatter the audience, in order to indoctrinate with ideology, that is without evidence. Add a little sugar to the poisonous pill.

Yes. "You're special." "You were created in the image of the gods." "The gods have a plan for your life." Standard stuff.

And, the hidden poison of the pill, that is left unspoken, is that all people are only animals, just like all animals of the earth.

Well, they're animals and people.

And so, for anyone swallowing the ideological pill, it is digested deeper by now naming people as animals. Since people are animals, then people need an animal name. It's the dehumanization of people into animals by inhuman scientific taxonomy.

You're the only one saying that taxonomy is dehumanizing.

It's the power of naming names: As one is named, so is he:

1Sa 25:25 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him:

Funny that the story you'd pick to represent humanity is of Abigail grovelling before a gang of thugs to save her own skin at the expense of her husband.

Now that the ideology is wholly digested, the ideologue can speak freely of people being members of the animal family. It's no longer the human family, but the human-primate family. Humans and primates are not ideologically made one.

It's just biological taxonomy. Ideology is more the church's forté.

No factual evidence yet, but plenty of good training in ideological psyops.

Going all-in on the projection, I see.

The human apes among us, like the good philanthrimate Christina, are going to first try to make us all a family of apes. Any anti-primate people can be dealt with later in another more physical manner. Permanently.

Wow. You went dark fast. Every accusation is a confession?

And now the circular loop of ideology is closed upon itself. A conclusion states as fact, based upon an ideology stated as fact. No 'if' at all.

What circular loop? So far, the conversation has been you making unsupported claims, people explaining why you're wrong, and you denying the evidence presented to you.

And what's deceptively creative about it, is that the loop is interchangeable in order of statement:

What?

Since all humans are animals, and named as animals, then all humans and are biologically related to primates...Since all humans are relatives of primates, then all humans are animals, in need of animal names...Each one is stated as fact in order to prove the other. And stated order doesn't matter.

You've got it backwards. Humans are animals because we're more closely related to the other animals than to things like plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea.

And of course, the family membership with animals is reinforced with being primate family relations...

Of course.

And now we finally look for the factual proof, and there is no there there. No factual evidence, but only PRESUMPTION. Ideology, not science.

You could stand to spend some time with a biology textbook.

The "factual proof" doesn't require much more than a microscope. Genomic data have much higher resolution and corresponding certainty, but the evidence is already incredibly powerful.

• Our cells have a defined nucleus, mitochondria, and membrane-bound organelles: Domain Eukaryota.
• Our cells lack a cell wall, we're multicelluar, and heterotrophic: Kingdom Animalia
• As embryos, we have a notochord and pharyngeal arches: Phylum Chordata
• We're wam-blooded, have hair and mammary glands: Class Mammalia
• We have large brains relative to body weight, grasping fingers, and flat fingernails: Order Primates
• We have even larger brains than other primates, lack tails, and show complex social behavior: Family Hominidae
• We have even larger brains than other great apes, have curved spines, arched feet, and walk upright: Genus Homo
• We're the only extant species of Homo, sapiens, subspecies sapiens.

Nothing there is assumed. Cladistic and phylogenetic analyses confirm the pattern, not only between humans and primates, but between all organisms, living and extinct.

The lynchpin of proof is waxen presumption, for a wagon full of ideology covered with scientific jargon.

If the pattern in the tree weren't real, the collection of traits would have a random distribution. Some animals would have feathers and mammary glands. Some would have hair and septate lungs. Traits are clustered exactly as one would expect from descent with modification.

Once again, as with presumption presented as fact,

No presumption is necessary. The pattern is real.

so with something 'beyond doubt' being without direct evidence. Ideology, not science.

I thought that direct evidence and scientific data are the same thing.

And finally, the closed loop ideology does not allow for humans evolving from humans. The previously existing human could not have been a person, but only a primate.

At what point does red transition to blue?

The ideological process that produced human animals, is from a previously existing ideology, that people are animals...All presumptive ideology, not scientific proof.

Now you know at least some of the data and that no presumptions are necessary, so you no longer need to claim otherwise.

Doesn't Christina-Lucy

Insults in lieu of data? How Christian of you.

mean human-primate population?

Why? We don't talk about the dog-canid population or cat-felid populations.

And, speaking of race:

So far, that's just you.

Since people are just animals,

Animals and people.

like all animals, then why all the human-people alone talk in the family of animals?

We communicate better in the same way that eagles see better, bats hear better, and dogs are better at smelling things.

Once again, doesn't that have a 'people-privilege' tone? A bigoted human-concentric ring to it?

Yes. I suspect it's not a coincidence that a human is deciding which traits are the best.

Doesn't that inherently isolate us human people from other animals, especially are primate relatives? Isn't that rank exclusivity?

Yes. We are the only humans there are, just like chimpanzees are the only chimpanzees there are, and wintergreen plants are the only wintergreen plants there are. We're all exclusive.

Just as there are human animals, demanding that gender-specific identifiers be finally eradicated. I also demand that human-people identification be also dismissed, for the more ideologically pleasing taxonomy of human-animal, or people-primate.

So that's your bugaboo? If science wins, then maybe trans people are people? What's next? Women and the poors are people, too? What's a Republican to do?

Unless of course there is equal inclusiveness for animals identified as humans: Animals are people too, no humans only! Four legs good, two legs bad!

Considering that despite PETA's best efforts, I can still buy all the steak I want and keep a tank of Sea-Monkeys on my desk, I don't think the slope's as slippery as you seem to be worried about. Whichever parakeet or ferret that's making you jealous isn't going to be taking your place anytime soon.

[Clownboat]

Afterall, I would never go to an unbeliever to help me believe the Bible. No help is better than bad help...

No surprise as cults don't allow such things (allowing the mixing with those not in the cult). Any help from anyone outside of the cult will be viewed as bad help, thus protecting the cult beliefs.

These words of mine remain unadressed:
"According to religious promotional material that we call the Bible, some believers of this religious promotional material believe that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were a special creation just 6,000 years ago. Other believers of this religious promotional material do not believe this claim and accept evolution as being the best explanation."

I just addressed it a second time. Just think of those 'other believers' as the duplicitous double minded, that unbelievers like to quote.

I will not and my point remains accurate:
"Other believers of this religious promotional material do not believe this claim and accept evolution as being the best explanation."
You are asking me to poison your well and I will not do that.

I call them unbelieving 'believers'.

Of course you do. You have preconceived beliefs to protect after all. You are powerless to believe them to be correct so what you deem to call them is unimportant.

Jesus calls them a sick lukewarm believers:

It sure is entertaining to watch the differing Christian denominations fight amongst themselves.
I got it right and you are lukewarm.
No, I got it right and you are lukewarm.
Actually, I got it right and you are both lukewarm.
Actually....

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

More cult think. Don't even think about questioning the beliefs we reinforce in you as that would be worse then completely disregarding them!
Just the idea of questioning authority is worse then a total rejection of it. Obviously, this is in place to control the members.

You do you though, just don't harm your fellow humans in the process.

[Clownboat]

Is it. What kind of human intelligence is it to say they are we have no more intelligence than primates?

I don't know. What kind of intelligences are you even alluding to and who here made such a claim?

Or, when you say there is no complete difference between humans and primates, you're not including spirit and intelligence?

First of all, humans are primates.
Secondly, what spirits are you wanting me to include? I'm not aware of the existence of these spirits you allude to.

If so, then it's human spirit and intelligence that is the irreconcilable separation between man and beast on earth. Do you deny it, or agree?

I can do neither until you define what you mean by spirit and then provide evidence for this thing so I can deny it or accept it.

I mean, it's self-explanatory and provable: No animal on earth even thinks about it, much less would foolishly argue against it...

What is this 'it' you are alluding to? Sorry if I failed to follow along.

Information was provided to you (characteristics of primates specifically) and it is you that is denying it.

Of course, I deny that classical piece of ideological propaganda. What else do you call something based solely upon a presumption, without any provable fact? And yet, they teach as though it were fact? That's ideology, not science.

The characteristics for primates that were supplied to you are factual. You call them an ideology because you have a preconceived belief to protect, but the supplied information was in fact, factual.

Do you know why you are denying primate characteristics? I do.

Who's denying primate characteristics? You? I don't deny primates nor their characteristics.

Neato! So do you accept that humans share these characteristics with other primates? Feel free to pretend that humans are the special creation of a god if it will help you to answer this honestly.

Nor do I deny being human and our characteristics.

Neato! So do you accept that humans share these characteristics with other primates? Feel free to pretend that humans are the special creation of a god if it will help you to answer this honestly.

I just deny we and primates are the same.

I know, and I also know why you deny that humans are primates.
If humans were to be re-classified, I wouldn't have a problem with that as I don't have any preconceived beliefs to protect. Not my pig, not my farm as they say. Your preconceived beliefs is what gives you pause in regards to accepting that humans are primates, therefore your position is literally just a denial of science.

Afterall, they don't think, much less know, how to accept or deny anything, like we do.

Do I have this correct? You think that all primates must think, accept and/or deny anything equally? Can you expound on this for me please and explain why this must be the case?

[Clownboat]

No one says newborn stars weren't born from the beginning of the universe. The universe of stars just didn't begin as gas alone without stars.

Correct, there was also dust.

Some gas without the universe of stars is something other than the universe.

Can anyone tell me what RBD is trying to convey, RBD included?

<snipped nothing burger talk for seemingly being really odd and off topic>

The expansive universe of stars formed all at once, is not intended to be impressive,

Nor is it to be taken seriously until reasoning is provided. Do you have any reasoning to supply us?

<snipped some Bible verses as I can not for the life of me understand why you are typing them in a debate where the Bible is not an authority.>

Imagine you are talking to people who have not made an idol out of the Bible for a minute.

Who I like to talk to is objective critics, that only want to hear exactly what the Bible says.

Then please leave this debate forum and have these discussions with your fellow believers that already share your beliefs and worship the same book as you do. Here you cannot expect to find only people that hear exactly what the Bible says (whatever that even means. Looking at you 40,000 denominations!).

And so, I extend that courtesy to all professing unbelievers.

Having people tell you their preferred religions beliefs in place of debating, on a debate forum no less is a courtesy we can do without.

If someone is an ideological disbeliever, who just doesn't want to hear it, then that's not my problem.

Derpy derp! It's also not your problem if they are vegan or only have one arm. Did you have a point or was this just some poisoning of the well?

If you don't want to hear what the Bible exactly says, then say so. I'll move on and not waste my time.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover. I was a born again, tongue talking, street evangelizing missionary to numerous countries Christian for decades. Your words are ridiculously unfounded and just a weak attempt at poisoning the well (something you are doing a lot of).

I'll go by the evidence what I now see.

And like I said...
Copy/paste: "I'm sorry, but we understand how stars form."

You can go by blind faith in something never seen nor proven,

What is it that you accuse me of having blind faith in? Please be specific.

Big Bangers are late-coming ideologues of the 20th century.

Is this topic too emotional for you to debate?

Are we now to deny the existence of the universe of shining stars? Just because of asteroids, black holes, gas clouds, comets etc...?

No, I beg you to acknowledge the existence of stars. It's comments like this that make me think you are getting emotional.

Ok, then you unintelligently accept this universe of stars began another way unproven, unknown, and unseen.

Please tell me more about what I believe, this is getting fascinating!

Blind ideology, not intelligent reason based on what is proven, known, and seen.

At some point you should just resort to name calling as you are not offering anything to debate. You offer me no challenge and instead allude to some blind ideology and a lack of intelligent reason. Like I said, you might as well resort to name calling.

No, you don't have the correct subject. No one is arguing about hot gas in the universe of stars today. The topic is about a time with no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

I am not aware of such a universe being suggested. Why do you suggest such a thing? Please provide evidence for it.

You need to stay on topic. Focus. I don't mind arguing the topic at hand, but I can't be redirecting people back on topic, who want to argue about something, that no one is disputing.

I would never expect you to be able to redirect people back to a topic. I don't even expect you to offer evidence for the claims you make. I do expect poisoning of the well, insults and perhaps soon, name calling.

There is no evidence, record, nor observed knowledge of any time, when there was no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

Agreed! Who the heck are you even debating and why do you continue to suggest a universe that only contained hot gas?