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]

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another

First, we have no direct evidence of any gods, let alone yours in particular, so we can't say that we have direct evidence that God did anything at all.

This isn't about evidence for God or gods, but for the Big Bang theory, which has no evidence. You need to answer for your belief in the Big Bang, rather than misdirect to things that have nothing to do with it.

This is also about a factual alternative to a Big Bang theory. Gen 1 states as fact, that the universe of stars was created expansive all at once. The evidence is the expansive universe. The Big Bang theorizes that all stars began from one place, which has no evidence, nor is stated as fact.

You need to answer why you choose to believe in a theory, that is never stated as fact, and has no direct evidence for it, rather than a statement of fact, that has daily evidence for it.

Second, you're trying to conflate the state of things today with a presumed state "in the beginning."

Gen 1 states a fact by the only evidence available. It's the Big Bang theory that extrapolates from an expanding universe, to state a presumptive theory that has no evidence.

You need to answer why you choose a presumed theory without evidence, over a self-evident stated fact.

If you get to claim "the stars moving around" as evidence for your "in the beginning" claim,

Not just the stars moving around, but firstly the stars set apart and never in the same place. Which includes newly born stars set apart from all others at their beginning.

You need to answer why you choose to believe from stars moving around, that they all began moving around from one place. The only evidence is of stars moving around apart from one another, and so the only fact that can be stated about their beginning, must be moving around apart from one another.

Why do you choose to believe a theoretical beginning without evidence, over a beginning factually based on the only evidence in the universe? Especially while claiming scientific evidence as your only guide, rather than faith alone?

then surely scientists may extrapolate the measured movements of heavenly bodies back to their own, much more detailed and robust "in the beginning" explanation.

Exactly right. Surely they must back-azimuth expansive bodies to a start point, for the Big Bang to be possible. But they can't, so the theory must not be possible.

Unless of course, unlike everyone else, you do have access to a back-azimuth location of the universe, that is the beginning place of the Big Bang. Do you?

It looks like you've made absolutely no effort to create any kind of logical construction.

Your only logical response to my argument, is that there must surely be some evidence of the Big Bang, by tracing a back-azimuth start point for the present expansive of stars. And yet, you end it there with a correct demand alone, because there is no such evidence.

By your own demand for the correct evidence, your only logical conclusion is that it can't be stated as fact, because your demanded evidence is not there.

You need to answer why you choose to believe an unfounded theory, that does not meet your own demand for proper evidence.

you simply refer to the biblical creation myth as a fact while asserting that the scientific model isn't one. Do better.

I refer to Gen 1 being stated as a fact based upon all known evidence. While confirming the theoretical model is not stated as fact, and acknowledges the evidence that ought to be there for it, is not there at all. Therefore, the only one that can be factually argued is Gen 1. The other can't be argued as factual at all, but only theorized as an nonfactual model.

Factual arguments depend upon direct evidence. Theories depend upon imagination alone.

You can keep imagining a Big Bang theory, and theorizing about back-azimuth evidence. I can keep believing Gen 1, by accepting direct daily evidence.

The evidentiary faith is in Gen 1, that is stated as fact, not as theory. The faith without evidence is in the Big Bang, that is not stated as fact, but only as theory.

You believers in the nonfactual Big Bang theory need to do much better. I don't accept anything on blind faith alone, especially when there is a factual alternative...

[Difflugia]

This isn't about evidence for God or gods,

You said so yourself in the OP:

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.

You either don't know what your own argument is or you're already trying to gaslight me.

but for the Big Bang theory, which has no evidence.

So soon after your screed about what technically is and isn't evidence? You should know better. Your unwillingness (or inability) to examine the evidence for the Big Bang doesn't mean that there isn't any, even in a colloquial sense.

You need to answer for your belief in the Big Bang, rather than misdirect to things that have nothing to do with it.

Do I? You haven't even justified your initial claims. You claimed that there is "direct evidence of God's creating all the stars," but when asked what the evidence actually is, you just claimed that you don't have to because it's self-evident. When you have more than word games to support your own position, I'll begin to consider your challenge to mine.

This is also about a factual alternative to a Big Bang theory. Gen 1 states as fact, that the universe of stars was created expansive all at once.

You can state anything you want as fact. I can, too: "Nuclear fission is the physical embodiment of the Easter Bunny's loving goodness."

The evidence is the expansive universe.

The evidence is the destruction of Hiroshima during World War II.

The Big Bang theorizes that all stars began from one place, which has no evidence,

Start here.

nor is stated as fact.

Perhaps scientists lack the hubris of Christian apologists.

You need to answer why you choose to believe in a theory, that is never stated as fact, and has no direct evidence for it, rather than a statement of fact, that has daily evidence for it.

Because I can do math.

Gen 1 states a fact by the only evidence available.

You haven't established that anything in Genesis 1 is a fact. You've certainly claimed that it is and at least appear very confident, but your only evidence so far is word games.

It's the Big Bang theory that extrapolates from an expanding universe, to state a presumptive theory that has no evidence.

I'll assume that you'll shortly update your "no evidence" claim.

Exactly right. Surely they must back-azimuth expansive bodies to a start point, for the Big Bang to be possible. But they can't, so the theory must not be possible.

Special pleading again? Looking up at the night sky is sufficient evidence the God Jesused the Universe, but scientists have to satisfy your arbitrary level of detail? It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic again. Are you?

Factual arguments depend upon direct evidence. Theories depend upon imagination alone.

Find any authority anywhere that says this. I'm pretty sure you just made this up.

You can keep imagining a Big Bang theory, and theorizing about back-azimuth evidence. I can keep believing Gen 1, by accepting direct daily evidence.

Something, something, childish things.

I don't accept anything on blind faith alone, especially when there is a factual alternative...

Of course. When you have more than word games, let us know.

[Clownboat]

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...)

It's comical to me that we have a poster that will point to some religious promotional material and call claims within it 'facts', and then go on to complain about a scientific theory. They obviously don't understand how much must take place for something to become a scientific theory nor just how meaningful that is. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Germ theory.
Plate tectonics theory.
Cell theory.
General relativity.
Heliocentrism.
Atomic Theory.
Etc....

Could you imagine someone rejecting that the sun is the center of our solar system because heliocentrism is just a theory? Such a person deserves to be ridiculed don't you think? Shame on you (generic you) for not understanding that which you complain about.

What's next, germs aren't real because 'germ theory' is just a theory? Nothing but an argument from ignorance and assuming fact that are not in evidence going on here.

[RBD]

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another

It looks like you've made absolutely no effort to create any kind of logical construction.

That's only if someone doesn't look at the direct evidence given for the stated fact at hand. Then of course, anything would look like no argument is given at all.

And even more so, if that oversight of the given evidence is worded carefully enough, so as to look educated, then maybe the oversight itself may be overlooked. And if enough people are also willing overlook the evidence given, who also word their response in a similarly educated fashion, then there would be a genuine scholarly consensus.

And we all know a consensus of scholars must never be overlooked, but always taken for very educated fact.

[Clownboat]

That's only if someone doesn't look at the direct evidence given for the stated fact at hand.

You have demonstrated an unwillingness to learn what evidence is as you continue to think that claims are evidence. They are not. Pointing to people believing something is also not evidence for the said belief itself.
You also demonstrate an unwillingness to learn what a scientific theory is.

Until you correct your thinking on such things, you will remain bewildered as to why we reject what you are calling evidence and scientific terms will continue to confuse you. You need to either show us that we are wrong and claims are indeed evidence or you need to amend your thinking on this matter. Continuing to stick your head in the sand by pretending that claims are evidence will protect your preconceived religious beliefs, but they will not turn claims into evidence as you hope.

I'm trying to be very specific as to why your claims are not being accepted. I have even demonstrated as to why by referring to analogies with the Quran and Joseph Smith (that people believe claims for both is not evidence that the claims are true).
If you take issue with how I am arriving at my conclusions, please spell it out for me as I do for you so I can self reflect if needed.

claim
/klām/
verb
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevəd(ə)ns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition (claim) is true or valid.

If I claim that the moon is made of cheese and I get one of my daughters to believe me, I have not done anything to indicate that my claim is true. I ONLY have a claim, even if I get both of my daughters to believe me.
I don't think I can make this any clearer for you, which is why I claim that you demonstrate an unwillingness to learn.

You are at war with established definitions/the English language.

[Difflugia]

It looks like you've made absolutely no effort to create any kind of logical construction.

That's only if someone doesn't look at the direct evidence given for the stated fact at hand. Then of course, anything would look like no argument is given at all.

You haven't made an argument, but simply declared by your own fiat what is and isn't "direct evidence." The Bible's claim that God created the stars and "there they are" are direct evidence, but scientific data are not?

And even more so, if that oversight of the given evidence is worded carefully enough, so as to look educated, then maybe the oversight itself may be overlooked. And if enough people are also willing overlook the evidence given, who also word their response in a similarly educated fashion, then there would be a genuine scholarly consensus.

So, people that talk about scientific data sound educated, therefore what? Don't trust people that are educated?

And we all know a consensus of scholars must never be overlooked, but always taken for very educated fact.

I'm pretty sure that's not the sick burn you think it is.

Your argument is literally an ad hominem attack on everyone more educated than you. You may want to take a few minutes to think about what that might mean.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #6]

Every single species alive is a "transitional species" in a sense.

In a sense... I.e. sort of... kind of... Not in fact.

And so, only if someone wants to believe it without direct evidence.

If you were to go to the future, and unearth homo sapien fossils, and later primates you could call that a "transitional fossil" because it shows transitional features linking these groups.

Only if you want to believe it in an unproven theoretical sense, without evidence of such species in actual transition. Otherwise, factually, we only have the primate species and human beings.

Your entire pushback is just one giant strawman argument.

Which is a throw away response by not addressing the argument at all, and it's daily direct evidence.

Neither the Big bang nor Human evolution is stated by fact, but only theory, because neither has any direct evidence.

Gen 1 creation of the expansive cosmos of stars at once, and people created in God's image are both stated as fact, and are proven daily by the direct evidence of an expansive cosmos, and human people being different from every other on earth.

you clearly do not understand what evolutionary biology even teaches.

Which clearly proves you don't know, or want to address what I've argued. As well as not knowing the difference between proven evolutionary biology within a species, and theoretical interspecies human evolution without any direct evidence.

Human evolution and the big bang are only piggy-back theories of other proven facts of an expanding universe and singular-species biological evolutionary mutation.

If you want to address my arguments, then I'll be glad to see it. If you want to acknowledge the difference between proven science and projected piggy-back theories, then you've learned something about what we know for a fact, and what some people want to believe in.

Once again, the believers in the big bang and human evolutionary theories must answer for their blind faith in things, that are neither stated as fact by their own postulators, nor have any factual direct evidence for them.

Those who accept Gen 1 have events stated as fact, and are confirmed by undeniable daily observation.

[POI]

In a sense... I.e. sort of... kind of... Not in fact. And so, only if someone wants to believe it without direct evidence.

When I state, "in a sense", this has nothing to do with whether or not it is evidence based. Direct evidence for evolution also includes observing evolutionary changes occurring in real-time, like the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant insects, and the fossil record, which provides tangible evidence of past life forms and their evolution. There exists no one living organism which morphs from one set of characteristics completely to another. The changes, over each successive offspring, changes in extreme micro-changes, that it is only noticed if comparing from one offspring, to maybe hundreds of successive offspring later. Comparing one generation to the next is negligible to almost none.

Only if you want to believe it in an unproven theoretical sense, without evidence of such species in actual transition. Otherwise, factually, we only have the primate species and human beings.

The only viable reason not to accept it is because your dusty old book makes the claim that God made "Adam and Eve" in his own image. Which would mean "Adam and Eve" would look nothing like they would today. Hence, reject any later discovery which contradicts the Bible's claimed assertion. However:

1. Direct Observation of Microevolution:

Evolution in Action: We can directly observe evolution happening in populations with short lifecycles, such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or insects becoming resistant to pesticides.

Examples: Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria: Bacteria populations can rapidly evolve resistance to antibiotics, demonstrating how natural selection can favor traits that allow survival in the presence of a selective pressure (the antibiotic).

Pesticide Resistance in Insects: Similarly, insect populations can evolve resistance to pesticides, with resistant individuals surviving and reproducing more successfully than those that are susceptible.

Other Examples: Pollutants, predation, or urbanization can also be observed in various organisms.

2. The Fossil Record:

Tangible Evidence of Past Life: Fossils provide a record of past life forms, including transitional forms that show how species have changed over time.

Examples: Transitional Fossils: Fossils like Archaeopteryx, which exhibits features of both birds and reptiles, demonstrate how different groups of organisms are related.

Fossil Evidence of Evolutionary Change: The fossil record shows a progression of life forms, from simple to complex, and can provide evidence of how species have changed over geological time.

Tracks, Burrows, and Borings: Fossilized tracks, burrows, and borings can also provide evidence of past animal behavior and environments.
Gastrolites and Coprolites: Gastrolites (stony pieces found in the stomachs of ancient reptiles and fishes) and coprolites (fossilized feces) offer insights into the diets and behaviors of extinct organisms.

Which is a throw away response by not addressing the argument at all, and it's daily direct evidence.

Negative. There is just so much wrong with what you state, it's hard to even know where to even begin.

[RBD]

RBD wrote
1. An expanding universe of stars does not mean they had to begin from one place, called the Big Bang, for which there is no direct evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence, that the universe of stars could not begin as the expanse that it is, from which it is presently expanding even further apart.

The expansion denotes expansion, nothing more.

True. Any backward projection to one place is theory alone, and has no direct evidence for it. The most we can factually say, is that the universe did not begin as expanded as it is today.

Science discovered the expansion,

The scientist Edwin Hubble first discovered the universe is expanding.

ergo it posits theories about it.

There are no theories about the expanding universe, which is proven fact. Later scientists began to posit theories about the Big Bang, and have yet to find any direct evidence for a universe contracted to one place in the beginning.

Christians learned from science that the universe is expanding, ergo theologians posit theories about it.

All interested scientists and people learned of universal expansionism. Only non-Bible theologians and scientists post theories about a Big Bang, that is not scientific fact, but is only assumed extrapolation from a presently expanding universe.

RBD wrote
And second, it proves that stars begin set apart from one another, not from the same place.

Science doesn't say all stars start from the same spot!. Galaxies wouldn't exist if that were the case. Why would you even think this way?

The stars 'beginning from the same place' is of course an accepted layman's description. The actual theory is that all the gaseous substance for stars began in one place, and by it's explosion, all the first stars were later gradually produced out of the cooling gas over millions of years. I.e. all the first stars did not begin at once, but only over time.

Gen 1 states all the first stars were all created at once, and at the same time spread throughout the firmament. Rather than lights beginning to shine here and there over time, they were all created here and there at once, and 'turned on' to shine at the same time.

Literal translation: God made two the big lights. The bigger light reigned the day, the smaller light reigned the night, and also the stars, 1:16. All of this is in the same place, birkia hashamayim in hammered sky, 1:14.

Correct. All the first created stars began at the same time and in the same place of an expansive firmament. Scientists can perhaps 'back azimuth' the stars to their beginning expansive size and place, but they have not been able to do so to one contracted place, from which a Big Bang could occur.

You misunderstand Genesis 1. It doesn't say God continuously expands the universe with the addition of newly created galaxies.

No, Gen 1 does not state the universe is expanding, but only that it began expansively with all their lights turned on at once.

The present expanding universe with old stars spreading apart, and new stars born, is accepted scientific fact since Hubble first proved it. It's only the 'retroactive' speculation of a Big Bang theory, that has no direct evidence.

Only Gen 1 has the direct evidence of all stars beginning spread apart and shining at the same time. That evidence of course is all the stars are spread apart and shining at the same time, with new stars being born to add to their expansion...

[RBD]

This isn't about evidence for God or gods,

You said so yourself in the OP:

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.

You either don't know what your own argument is or you're already trying to gaslight me.

As the title states, the proof of evidence is what Gen 1 says about the creation of the stars, and of man and woman in God's image. I've confined my arguments to what Gen 1 says with the direct evidence for it.

but for the Big Bang theory, which has no evidence.

So soon after your screed about what technically is and isn't evidence? You should know better. Your unwillingness (or inability) to examine the evidence for the Big Bang doesn't mean that there isn't any, even in a colloquial sense.

Postulators of the Big Bang say plainly there is no direct evidence, but only retroactive speculation from the fact of an expanding universe. Your unwillingness to accept there is no direct evidence, means you need to supply what no other scientist has. Or, you are just unwilling to believe them.

You need to answer for your belief in the Big Bang, rather than misdirect to things that have nothing to do with it.

Do I? You haven't even justified your initial claims.

My argument is justified by Gen 1 stating these things as fact, and direct daily evidence. Unless someone can prove otherwise, Gen 1 remains justified.

Since neither the Big Bang nor human evolution is stated as fact, due to no proven evidence, then neither of them can have any part in a factual argument. They are consigned to theoretical arguments only.

You claimed that there is "direct evidence of God's creating all the stars," but when asked what the evidence actually is, you just claimed that you don't have to because it's self-evident.

When you quote someone saying something, then you won't misrepresent them.

I'll begin to consider your challenge to mine.

There is no 'challenge' to confronting your unwillingness to believe the Big Bang has no direct evidence. A simple statement of that fact from it's own postulators is sufficient. If you don't want to believe them, then give the evidence they don't have: A contracted universe beginning in one place.

Gen 1 states a fact by the only evidence available.

You haven't established that anything in Genesis 1 is a fact.

Once again, the difference between Gen 1 and the Big Bang/human evolutionary theories, is that Gen 1 is stated as a fact, while neither the Big Bang nor human evolution do so. The difference also is the daily direct evidence of Gen 1's statement of fact, that the stars are all created in expanse at once, and that people are created in God's image.

If you don't know the difference between a person and other creatures on earth, whether ape, shrimp, or lizard, then ask any one of them what the difference is. See if one of them can tell you.

Factual arguments depend upon direct evidence. Theories depend upon imagination alone.

Find any authority anywhere that says this. I'm pretty sure you just made this up.

Whether it's scientific, educated, or wild imagination, if it's without direct evidence, then it's still all imaginative guesswork.