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]

With no evidence that they didn't exist as now,

No evidence is no evidence. It cuts both ways.

True, and so you acknowledge there is no evidence for the Big Bang.

However, the absence of evidence for something that never been seen nor known nor recorded, is not a case where no evidence means it could be true. By that theory, anything anyone can ever think of, could be true, so long as no evidence disproves it.

There is evidence that the universe has always been expansive, including a record stated as fact that it started that way.

No honest cosmologist states the Big Bang as fact.

then the only evidence is that they always exist as now.

That's an inference, or what you've been denigrating as speculative. You're looking at a picture of a baseball in midair and arguing that it's in a steady state and has always been that way.

Not so. There is the evidence of scientific fact of motion, that the ball could not have begun in midflight, and so must have begun with initial force.

The universe is not a ball flying nor hanging in midair. There is no scientific fact that it must have started unexpanded from one place.

Hubble discovered what is happening with the universe of stars, that they were expanding.

Hubble figured out that after the picture was taken, the baseball is moving. It's not in a steady state.

Very good. He proved the universe is moving and expanding. He did not prove nor theorize that it began as a condensed ball moved from one place. That is a only latter projected speculation, that has no scientific law of motion demanding it, that would say the expanded universe must have started as a condensed ball. Especially not of ball of gas, where there were no stars in that 'balled up' pseudo universe.

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.

You seem to think even defining your terms is a waste of time, but this isn't? Whatever, here goes:

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.

There's plenty of evidence for both modern cosmology and evolution.

Once again these are only sites showing the scientific proof of an expanding universe and biological evolution. The cosmological data given is objective science, without any attempt to even speculate on the Big Bang. The Evolutionary 'essay' is a faux argument for human evolution, by defending biological evolution. It makes a false attack against non-human evolutionists, as being against biological science itself. Not subscribing to the Big Bang and human evolutionary theories, for whatever reason, is not a rejection of the scientifically proven expanding universe and biological evolution.

I'm no longer going to correct you on the difference between evidence of an expanding universe, and of biological evolution, vs no evidence of the projected Big Bang and human evolutionary theories. They are only piggy-back speculations forced upon the otherwise proven sciences of universal expansion and single-species biological evolution.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #51]

and so you acknowledge there is no evidence for the Big Bang.

"Almost all of these galaxies are moving away from us – some at speeds of hundreds of thousands of kilometres every second.

If most galaxies are moving away from us, it means that the Universe is expanding. If the Universe is expanding, then in the past it must have been much smaller. Go back far enough, and there was a moment when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and expanded outwards. That moment was the Big Bang.

We can even work out when it happened from the speed of the galaxies: about 14 billion years ago. We can't actually see the galaxies moving, but the clue is in the light coming from them – it is redder than it should be."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/articles/zjn68xs

[RBD]

nor has the intelligence, imagination, and faith that only people have.

Sure,

Absolutely. It is the inherent self-explanatory evidence, that humans are completely different from all other natural creatures on earth, so that there can be no crossover between them and us.

[/quote] and other species possess many other traits far superior to humans. [/quote]
Whales are bigger, gorillas are stronger, sloths are slower, and birds whistle clearer by nature. And, only humans have the intelligence to even think of making conclusions based upon physical observations.

And only ideologically evolutionized humans reduce themselves to natural beasts, would say that whales, gorillas, sloths, or birds are more 'superior', than themselves.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Thus, your point is mute if you wish to place humans at the absolute pinnacle of 'creation.

Obviously not all humans.

2 Peter{2:12} But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Further, humans, from about 4K years ago, would not need any 'god' to tell them that only humans possess rational thought over other species.

Much of the Bible is the simple wisdom of what we already know, and it counts anyone a fool that rejects it. Such as some ideologically-challenged humans being inferior to beasts of the field, and bowing down to their 'superiority'...

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.

You are quickly going to place yourself into a very precarious position. You are getting ready to walk a rather fine line between "creationism" and evolutionary biology.

Confirming biological science is taught in the Bible, is a broad and obvious walk of objectively normal and intelligent people. The creating God is not against the biology He creates.

Jhn 1:2The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men…And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Only humans can reject evident truth, and make themselves incomprehensibly inferior to brute beasts.

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.

These traits aren't what make humans and the grape apes so similar. We share 98% of their DNA.

There's also the ideological trait, that makes some humans no smarter than apes. Even a little child knows a dumb ape, when they see one.

The obvious incomprehensibility of such ideologues, is that on the one hand, they claim to be inferior to dumb animals, and then demand to know if dumb donkeys can talk.

no human gets a blood transfusion from primates

You are referring to xenotransfusion. And yes, since we are a different species, such a process is never recommended. A matter of fact, xenotransfusion is not really recommended between any two differing species. This goes back to speciation.

Thank you. The Bible teaching biology and confirmed by biology:

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

nor does any primate have any thought to so much as imagine being primates, much less being human primates...

Are you saying primates do not possess self-awareness?

Well, that about sums it up for the spiritual and intellectual degradation of human evolution ideology.

Being aware of natural hunger, thirst, pain, comfort, fight or flight, etc... Does not mean dumb brute beasts ponder themselves, and their place in the world.

They could fairly accurately sum up their state of mind, by having a gorilla pondering life on a toilet bowl.

no person has ever been a primate, nor has any primate every thought, imagined, nor believed like a person.

This is a straw man argument because you clearly do not even understand what evolutionary biology proposes. Humans and primates share a common ancestry.

Case closed.

[RBD]

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

And you believe evidence supports this claim? If so, give me your best piece?

When arguing about Bible teaching, I use Bible chronology. According to the Bible, man has been for about 6000 years on earth. There is no evidence before 4000 B.C. of human civilization.

[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...)

OK. Just a long-winded way of admitting that you have NO evidence in support of YOUR claim. Since I am not making any claim, it is not incumbent on me to to provide anything. You are merely making a faith based assertion with no valid reason to have it accepted as fact.

Fair point. I'm long-winded.

The evidence of human separation from natural animals is daily seen and known. If demanding evidence for daily evidence isn't a claim, then it's something else not worth being long-winded over.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

I re-read the OP and tried to identify as many logical fallacies as I could.

I came up with:

False equivalence (equating science with belief in God)

False analysis (Equating facts with faith)

Argument from ignorance (lack of direct evidence does not equate to disproof)

Argument from confusion (Lack of contrary evidence does not equate with disproof)

Strawmanning (misrepresenting the Big Bang)

Argument from deception (Misrepresenting the Big Bang has direct evidence)

Equivocation (using ‘theory’ in both colloquial and scientific senses)

Equivocation (Equating theory with proven science)

Begging the question (Genesis is right because it says so)

Straw man (Equating facts with faith)

Hasty generalisation (“humans are self-evidently separate)

Personal incredulity (humans are not self-evidently separate)

I may have missed some more subtle ones, but that’s still quite the list.

I'm sure you can find more subtle ways to mischaracterize plain arguments. Afterall, it's what makes some humans so self-evidently separate from natural animals, who wouldn't even think to characterize anything, much less mischaracterize.

Quite a few posters already have challenged the claims made in the OP and it’s rather telling that (in the main) they take care to be logically consistent.

Like you?

I sense the OP is less interested in testing the strength of his/her argument and more in convincing him/herself.

I see the anti-OP is most interested in the subtle art of mischaracterizing something, rather than addressing the facts of the argument at hand.

False equivalent straw man begging an answer (Equating mischaracterization without proof, with challenging a logical argument.)

[RBD]

So says some paleontologists, and some say they were primate and not man. Neither of which prove they were living on earth more than 35,000 years ago.

Humans are primates, but we'll charitably assume that you mean "nonhuman primates." So, who says that Neanderthals aren't human? Can you provide a source or quote?

Human beings are not primate animals.

I'll no longer insult average human intelligence, by pointing out the self-evident complete separation between humans a primates.

Afterall, only a human being can argue the difference. Primates can't even think about it, much less ponder it's significance.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #51]

and so you acknowledge there is no evidence for the Big Bang.

"Almost all of these galaxies are moving away from us – some at speeds of hundreds of thousands of kilometres every second.

Scientific fact.

If most galaxies are moving away from us, it means that the Universe is expanding.

Logical conclusion of scientific fact.

If the Universe is expanding, then in the past it must have been much smaller.

Logical conclusion of scientific fact (smaller), with theoretical hypothesis. (Much)

Go back far enough, and there was a moment when all the matter in the Universe was packed into a point and expanded outwards. That moment was the Big Bang.

Unreasonable conclusion from theoretical hypothesis alone, without scientific fact.

There is no evidence of a pseudo universe without stars. There may have been nothing physical before the stars, but there is no universe without stars.

Perhaps it can be called the great ball of gas, but certainly not the great balls of fire...

We can even work out when it happened from the speed of the galaxies: about 14 billion years ago. We can't actually see the galaxies moving, but the clue is in the light coming from them – it is redder than it should be."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/articles/zjn68xs

Meaningless speculation to prop up an unreasonable conclusion from theoretical hypothesis alone, without any scientific evidence.

It's meaningless, because it can't be done, else it had already been done, to give direct scientific evidence of the pre-Big Bang ball of gas without stars...

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-big-ba ... eveals-why

"Scientists have no direct evidence for what came before the breakdown of electroweak unification (when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined). At such high energies and early times, we can only stare at the mystery of the Big Bang. So what does theory suggest?"

It proves the title is a lie, that the Big Bang is 'beyond doubt'. It also proves the deception of teaching such mystery as scientific proof. And finally, it proves that when the Big Bang and human evolution are taught as proven science, they become false ideologies for social construction.

Talk about self-decieved ideology based upon 'faith' alone...

"There are two kinds of stupid in the world. The uneducated stupid, and the educated stupid. Which of these is the most stupid?" (Anonymous)

Every time I look at the promise of direct evidence to prove the Big Bang and human evolution are scientific fact, all we get is just another great big nothing burger full of empty gas.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #57]

Human beings are not primate animals.

characteristics of primates:

hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

Human beings are primates.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

There is no evidence of a pseudo universe without stars. There may have been nothing physical before the stars, but there is no universe without stars.

Perhaps it can be called the great ball of gas, but certainly not the great balls of fire...

Distant stars can be seen forming out of gaseous accretion disks even now. If gas can form stars now, why couldn't gas form stars as the universe began?