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...)

[Diagoras]

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

Here’s a single example of a claim. It’s important to point out the strength of that claim is measured by how successful attempts to disprove it are. Further, some parts of the claim are easier to dispute (“looked the same”) than others (“power to believe or not”).

So for instance, if direct evidence came to light in the form of differently-shaped bone structures of early humans, that would reduce the strength of the claim.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180976807/

[brunumb]

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

I eagerly await your evidence in support of this extraordinary claim.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1

Snakes had legs until they evolved a different means of locomotion.....
https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-snake- ... on-1473003

.....but have apparently never been capable of producing human speech.

and none for the Big Bang

https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-micr ... round.html

[POI]

Which discovery of transspecies mutation and evolution does not exist between man and primate.

Since you value the court system, here is a 4-minute video, to save writing a text wall. As a primer, the speaker is a Roman Catholic from the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial. Hint hint, chromosome #2 will be mentioned:

[POI]

All people since the first man and woman on earth have looked the same

There are differing ways to address this blank assertion. I guess I'll first ask...

How long ago do you believe the first man appeared? 6K years ago, 10K years ago, 100K years ago, other?
=

[RBD]

The direct evidence is that they exist the same as in the beginning,

We don't have that. We have evidence of how they exist now.

With no evidence that they didn't exist as now, then the only evidence is that they always exist as now. A speculative theory otherwise is meaningless. Especially, then the evidence used is how they exist now.

Since the Gen 1 manner of creation has direct evidence,

You've claimed that, but haven't provided any.

You haven't been reading what is provided.

The only definition for direct evidence, is direct evidence, which is called scientific data. The only thing precluding scientific data is no direct evidence at all. Scientific data for the Big Bang and human evolution are not precluded by no direct evidence, but are excluded.

What?

Direct evidence and scientific date are the same thing. Neither the Big Bang nor human evolution have any.

Unless you personally have some that no one else has? You would be lauded and quoted in all cosmological and evolutionary journals, for finally showing the direct data and evidence, that the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories, but are now proven scientific fact, such as Hubbell's universal expansion, and Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species.

The problem is that this statement is so wrong that it's hard to know what exactly you're wrong about.

Try one point. You can choose the littlest to work your way up to bigger.

Otherwise, what's so wrong about it, is that it's just not what you want to believe.

• the Big Bang and human evolution are not only speculative theories
  • They're both theories, but neither is speculative.

All unproven theories are speculative, until proven true by direct evidence. That's why they aren't stated as fact, as Gen 1 does.

[*]are now proven scientific fact

• The facts are the supporting data.

[*]such as Hubbell's universal expansion

• Laws are descriptions, usually mathematical, of what is happening. Theories explain how and why. Hubble's law was never Hubble's theory and relativity theory will never become relativity law. They're qualitatively different things.

What is happening is based upon observable fact. Theories of why they are happen without direct evidence are speculative, not law.

Hubble discovered what is happening with the universe of stars, that they were expanding. Any theory of a retroactive Big Bang was never Hubble's, but only that of following speculators.

[*]Wallace-Darwinian biological evolution within a species

• The data that support evolution aren't somehow bounded by definitions of species.

[/list]

Biological evolution within a species is proven by direct evidence. Intra-species evolution is only speculative without direct evidence.

It's deceitful to speak of intra-species evolution between primates and humas, as though it were one and the same as known single-species evolution.

The expanding universe and biological evolution are scientific fact. The theories of a Big Bang and human evolution are not. Like trying to mix oil and water, the learned observant eye can always spot the difference.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

First 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is direct evidence for something, then you can look at what that direct evidence in.

I know what most people mean, but you've been inconsistent. I'd like you to nail it down.[/quote]

Too obvious to waste time on.

You can also 'figure out' what it means for someone to say there is no direct evidence for something, then you can work on what that 'means', when trying to believe it as scientific fact.

You're also inconsistent about what you mean by "scientific fact."[/quote]
Scientific fact is not hard to understand: It's science proven by direct evidence.

Your inconsistency is trying to talk about unproven scientific theories, as though they were proven scientific fact.

Direct evidence for an expanding universe, and for same-species biological evolution, have nothing to do with a big bang and inter-species evolution, which are only piggy-back theories without direct evidence of their own.

The same measurements for an expanding universe and "same-species" biological evolution also support the Big Bang and biological evolution writ large in the same way. If the evidence is "direct" in the former contexts, it's "direct" in the latter as well.[/quote]

Writ-large as in coopting evidence from something else, for something that has none.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

There are two deceitful ways in which the Big Bang and Evolutionary theory are taught: First is by subtly mixing them with the scientific facts of an expanding universe, and single-species biological evolution. Second is by the social engineering lies of teaching them as scientific facts.

Let's start there. What makes evidence direct when it applies to an expanding universe or "same-species" biological evolution, but not when it applies to the Big Bang or biological evolution overall?

Repeated too many times to waste more time on.

[RBD]

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

Here’s a single example of a claim.

An observable claim, that is based upon observable fact, without any evidence to the contrary. There is no direct evidence nor recorded human example of any human that was not only human. (Sasquatch and the Hulk notwithstanding...)

Dittoes for observable expansive universe of stars, where there is no evidence nor recorded observation of universal mass of hot gas, without stars yet formed...

It’s important to point out the strength of that claim is measured by how successful attempts to disprove it are.

I.e. disproving something is by direct evidence to the contrary. For which is there is none of man and woman ever not being shaped the same and intelligently aware of ourselves and surroundings. People have always been people, and are always distinctly different from all other creatures on earth.

Dittoes for the expansive universe of stars, being always an expansive universe of stars.

Further, some parts of the claim are easier to dispute (“looked the same”) than others (“power to believe or not”).

All things are easy to dispute by direct evidence. Without any such direct evidence, then any dispute of the observable obvious is speculative at best, and a waste of time at most.

So for instance, if direct evidence came to light in the form of differently-shaped bone structures of early humans, that would reduce the strength of the claim.

'If' is the great speculative gap between 'is' and 'is not'.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180976807/

Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species

Only speculative, since no key point of any primate/human is given by direct evidence.

These five skulls, which range from an approximately 2.5-million-year-old Australopithecus africanus on the left to an approximately 4,800-year-old Homo sapiens on the right, show changes in the size of the braincase, slope of the face and shape of the brow ridges over just less than half of human evolutionary history.

No one has said the skulls and heads of all primates are smaller than humans, or vica versa.

The long evolutionary journey that created modern humans began with a single step—or more accurately—with the ability to walk on two legs.

Speculative lie. No one says primates can't temporarily walk on two legs, nor that humans have intelligent thought independent of nature, because we naturally walk on two legs. (Nor does anyone say some people look and even act like big apes...)

All of this is presented speculation of a theory, that can only convince someone already disposed to believe it. To any objective scientist that only deals in facts, it's just a fluff piece for an unproven theory.

[RBD]

All people since the first man and woman on earth, have looked the same and have the same powers of rational thought, intelligent imagination, and power to believe or not believe someone.

I eagerly await your evidence in support of this extraordinary claim.

I eagerly await your evidence contrary to this obvious claim. Only a primate/human evolutionary believer, would even think to believe otherwise...

All people on earth have been people on earth by direct evidence of all recorded human history, without any evidence to the contrary.

Dittoes for all the universe being an expanse of stars.

Observable faith in in Gen 1. Blind faith is in a Big Bang and primate/human evolution. (And they say believers in the Bible are the uneducated deniers of reality...)

[RBD]

Which discovery of transspecies mutation and evolution does not exist between man and primate.

Since you value the court system, here is a 4-minute video, to save writing a text wall. As a primer, the speaker is a Roman Catholic from the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial. Hint hint, chromosome #2 will be mentioned:

Shared genomes does not prove primate/humans. All naturally created flesh on earth share natural genomes. However, no other creature on earth shares the same one blood of all humans, nor has the intelligence, imagination, and faith that only people have. Which Gen 1 says is the image and likeness of God.

Furthermore, the genome study only once again proves the Bible record, that all flesh on earth have one thing in common: Naturally mortal flesh.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Psa 78:39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

No one disputes the observable facts, that primates and humans have similar heads, primates can temporarily walk on two legs, and human flesh is the same as all flesh, excepting that the blood and spirit of man and woman is not like any other natural creature on earth.

People can look and act like big apes, as well as be as hairy as an ape, but no human gets a blood transfusion from primates, nor does any primate have any thought to so much as imagine being primates, much less being human primates...

People can think of themselves as primates, and believe they are evolutionized from them, but the observable fact of all recorded history, without any evidence to the contrary, is that no person has ever been a primate, nor has any primate every thought, imagined, nor believed like a person.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2Pe 2:12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not;

[RBD]

All people since the first man and woman on earth have looked the same

There are differing ways to address this blank assertion. I guess I'll first ask...

How long ago do you believe the first man appeared? 6K years ago, 10K years ago, 100K years ago, other?
=

According to the Bible beginning after Gen 1:2, and recorded history of man's civilisation: about 6000+ years.