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...)

[Difflugia]

Human beings are not primate animals.

Christina A. Crawford, Principles of Biology, p. 290:

Gen 1:26 And God said,

Wrong subforum.

[Difflugia]

No evidence is no evidence. It cuts both ways.

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

Do I? By addressing your flawed argument, I acknowledge that your argument is flawed. Do you have more than word games?

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.

Exactly. Anything is possible, the cornerstone of apologetics. Of course, the same argument works for Santa Claus, but here we are.

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.

And no honest Christian states the Bible stories as fact, but here we are.

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.

Yes. And there's evidence that the starry sky that was seen by the biblical authors didn't represent the initial state of the universe. That was exactly my point in making that analogy.

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.

If you're quibbling on the word "fact," then there's no "fact" that the ball couldn't have started midflight, either. There's evidence that is nigh irrefutable, just like there is for the unexpanded universe, but you're technically correct: neither can be called a "fact."

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.

Are you now arguing that the Bible stories include an expanding universe? Or are you, as I suspect, trying to shift the goalposts?

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.

Do you know what special pleading is?

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.

Bingo!

[POI]

humans are completely different from all other natural creatures on earth, so that there can be no crossover between them and us.

False.

Some animals do show behaviors that resemble the building blocks of morality—such as empathy, fairness, cooperation, and even a sense of justice.

Primates (especially chimpanzees and bonobos) -- Empathy & Consolation: Chimps console distressed individuals, a behavior linked to emotional empathy. Fairness: In experiments, they show anger when treated unfairly (e.g., when another gets a better reward for the same task). Altruism: Bonobos share food with strangers, even without immediate benefit.

Elephants show grief, help injured individuals, and participate in cooperative problem-solving. They also react emotionally to the death of others, indicating deep social awareness.

Wolves and dogs rely on cooperation and fairness in the pack. Dogs, through domestication, have become highly attuned to human emotions and show empathy and prosocial behavior.

Dolphins display helping behaviors, social norms, and teaching of young, which may imply some sense of social responsibility.

only humans have the intelligence to even think of making conclusions based upon physical observations.

False again.

Great Apes (e.g., chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) – Can use tools, recognize patterns, and make predictions based on experience.

Cetaceans (e.g., dolphins, some whales) – Show complex social behaviors, communication, and can solve novel problems.

Elephants – Demonstrate self-awareness, grief, cooperation, and use tools; they can also infer intentions in some contexts.

Corvids (e.g., crows, ravens, jays) – Can reason through problems, use tools, and understand cause-effect relationships.

Parrots (especially African greys) – Show verbal reasoning and categorization skills.

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'...

Correction. When the ancients wrote the Bible, they wrote of what they were limited in knowing at the time. We know much more now. Some of which does not align with the Bible -- which is one of the reasons Christians now reply upon Christian apologetics.

The creating God is not against the biology He creates.

Then please explain the 4-minute video? The evolution denier can merely shrug their shoulders and state, 'well, that's the way God did it."

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.

Your argument continues to be illogical. This would be like arguing that the unique trait(s) of another species makes them both superior to humans, as well as arguing that this God must favor that species over humans.

Further, having the ability to ponder does not equal God's existence. Just because humans have the ability to imagine things, does not then make those imagined things true.

[POI]

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.

What about the evidence of human civilization prior to this? Earliest findings place intelligent humans in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco around 300K years ago. And by intelligent, I mean the ability to make tools and campfires.

[Clownboat]

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

Ne·an·der·thal
/nēˈandərˌTHôl/
noun
1.
an extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between c. 120,000–35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. The Neanderthals were associated with the Mousterian flint industry of the Middle Paleolithic.

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.

You failed to defend your claim.
Feel free to stick your head as far in the sand as it necessary in order for you to retain your preconceived religious beliefs. I am no longer saddled with such thinking.

[Clownboat]

I can only speak of the illogic of 'believers' not believing.

English isn't your first language, is it?

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

Please define what you mean when you use the word 'unbelievers' as I'm trying to make sense of your words.
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.

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."

[RBD]

[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.

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.

2Pe 2:12But 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;

It's called the power of man created in the image of God, to choose darkness over light, and ignorance over intelligence.

[RBD]

[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?

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.

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

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.

Since we do see a universe of shining stars, and no one has seen anything different, nor can scientifically prove otherwise, then by our own sense of experience, we can intelligently accept that the universe began this way. It's only those who have no known intelligence otherwise, that must accept a gaseous place without stars, by blind faith alone.

[RBD]

[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?

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.

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

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.

Since we do see a universe of shining stars, and no one has seen anything different, nor can scientifically prove otherwise, then by our own sense of experience, we can intelligently accept that the universe began this way. It's only those who have no known intelligence otherwise, that must accept a gaseous place without stars, by blind faith alone.

In the case of the Genesis account of the universe beginning with expansive shining stars, vs the Big Bang theory of gas without stars, it's the all gas alone theory that can only be argued by blind faith alone. The Genesis account at least has daily direct evidence of what is, and there is no evidence nor reason not to be what was.

[RBD]

[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?

The Bible never says new stars don't form of gas, nor that the universe isn't 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.

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

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.

Since we do see a universe of shining stars, and no one has seen anything different, nor can scientifically prove otherwise, then by our own sense of experience, we can intelligently accept that the universe began this way. It's only those who have no known intelligence otherwise, that can only accept a gaseous place without stars, by blind faith alone.

In the case of the Genesis account of the universe beginning with expansive shining stars, vs the Big Bang theory of gas without stars, it's the 'all gas alone' theory that can only be argued by blind faith alone. The Genesis account at least has daily direct evidence of what is, and there is no evidence nor reason not to accept it as what was.