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...)

[Clownboat]

Please define what power of spiritual reasoning is. It sounds looney to me.

Your listing of past glories said it all.

So when you said: "Our power of spiritual reasonings" (which I then asked you to define), you were referring to my history of being a Christian Evangelist? I find this hard to believe

with our five-digit hands and feet, our thoughtful eyes, and our lean, muscular physiques. We have lungs, a heart, a brain, a nervous system, and all those other features we share with mammals.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human- ... ns-animals

And yet, for all this we are not primates nor animals.

I acknowledge you deny this science, but since you have no rebuttal to it, I can't take you seriously.

Your present gospel notwithstanding.

I don't have any books that I worship/idolize. That is you. The above is nothing but a weak attempt to level the playing field by pretending we both worship books when that is not true.

You will know them by their fruits! At least there was no name calling for once! Progress!

[RBD]

Gen 1 is the first chapter of a book. What it says is believable astronomy

That there was light before stars in not believable,

Not to disbelievers in the God that is Light.

nor that the earth can cease to rotate,

Unbelief in the God and Creator of heaven and earth, is not an argument against Him ruling the heaven and earth by the word of His power, and at the word of His believing servant.

Since there is no conflict with anything else taught and recorded in the Bible, then the record of the sun standing still in the sky is simply a matter of belief or unbelief.

This is about Bible inerrancy, not about a person's belief or unbelief.

nor that a star can remain in the same place in the sky

The star first moved, then stood over where Jesus was. It did not just remain in the same place the whole time, while they travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.

The problem with people assuming they are correct from the start, stops future learning.

Tell me about it. But I don't need instruction on how not to believe the Bible. I already knew how to do that long ago.

Now I only learn how the Bible always proves itself unerring, and I love it time and time again. I always learn the failures and manner of people trying to prove otherwise. I learn much from the Bible by the erroneous readings of others. And I learn much about blind disbelief, when accusers refuse to accept any reasonable alternative to their claim of error.

There are objective skeptics that at least acknowledge the possible alternatives. They have not grudging axe to grind, but only reserve judgment until all the facts are in.

Those that have picked religious promotional material to assume their knowledge

This is another ideological assumption of disbelievers, who cannot accept anyone believing the Bible by intelligent study.

Act 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

often times see no reason to learn about the Big Bang, evolution, dating methods

I know what the big bang is, unlike some that argue for it, but are confused about it. They don't understand that it's all about a hypothetical pre-universe of hot gas alone, without shining stars. The big bang is only a made up mechanism to turn it into a universe of shining stars. It's an unproven theory only speculated from the science of the presently expanding universe.

Biological evolution is science. Human evolution is ideological wishing. It's another speculated theory of cross-evolution, that is hypothesized from the science of simple biological evolution.

Dating methods are science. Skeletons of human-primates don't exist. All that exists are human skeletal remains for the past thousands of years, and primate remains, that have similar features to human beings, but are not human remains. Those primates are either now extinct, or still exist.

If someone proves the Big Bang as wrong,

You can't prove a theory is wrong, where there is no evidence for or against. That includes both the big bang theory, as well as Gen 1's declaration of the universe of expansive stars created all at once.

The only direct evidence is an expanded universe of stars, not of any pre-universe of hot gas alone, without any shining stars.

The Gen 1 declaration is therefore more believable, than a pre-universe, that big banged into the presently expanding universe of shining stars.

I lose nothing and have a better explanation to accept.

If the Bible is true, you lose everything:

Mar 8:34 Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

If the Bible is false, then I've still only lost my past ungodly living. And if this is all there is, then at least I lived it better and loved it more:

1 Tim{4:8} For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

I also enjoy learning the difference between objective intelligence with a Book, and irrational arguments against it, when accurate study proves it could possibly be true.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #91]

Zealous disbelievers must blind themselves to the undeniable truth of spiritually intelligent separation between man and beast, just so they can try to convince themselves, that there is no God of faith, that creates all people in His own reasoning image.

The idea that our bodies are part of the animal world really bothers you, doesn't it?

Having natural flesh the same as all creatures of flesh on earth, is only natural.

People calling themselves animals doesn't bother me. Nor even teaching it to others (other than abusing the trust of little children). It only bothers me when it's an ideology that is taught, not science. Especially when the "Human begins are animals" ideology has done so much in the past hundred years to destroy the lives of people on earth.

If you believe that God can make a son of Abraham out of a rock, why do you have such a problem with God making a son of Abraham out of an ape?

Because God said He could do the one, and never said He would do the other.

And I have no problem with anyone believing they are an ape. Nor that they are male, when born female. Just keep it to themselves, and I live and let live.

[RBD]

The expansion of the universe is itself such evidence; tracing the expansion in reverse puts everything in the known universe together.

The expanding universe only proves the universe was smaller than today. Nothing puts the universe of shining stars into a bottle of hot gas without stars. The direct evidence is only for a smaller universe of stars, not bottled gas alone.

Stars are observed forming from gas clouds, and there is no evidence of any stars being formed in any other way.

True. And there is no evidence of a pre-universe of bottled gas clouds, where there were no stars shining.

Every pseudo-article for the big bang, is 90% instruction on the expanding universe, 9% speculation about a gaseous pre-universe, and 1% tucked away admission, that there's no evidence for it.

The same hypocrisy is shown by human evolutionary ideologues, who say there is no missing link to biological evolution, as though that applies to human evolution, that has no link of any human-primate skeletal remains.

When there is evidence of a pre-universal gas, without shining stars. Then I want to see it. Dittoes for any skeletal remains of a human that is a primate. Not of old primate remains that only have distant similarity to human skeletons...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #133]

The idea that our bodies are part of the animal world really bothers you, doesn't it?

Having natural flesh the same as all creatures of flesh on earth, is only natural.

But it still bothers you since it makes us so like other creatures----especially other primates.


If you believe that God can make a son of Abraham out of a rock, why do you have such a problem with God making a son of Abraham out of an ape?

Because God said He could do the one, and never said He would do the other.

Review the video in post #73.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #99]

Chromosome #2 is distinct to people alone. Like similar physical appearance, primates only have nearly identical Chromosome #2. Similar and nearly is not scientific proof. They only work in house shoes and horseshoes. They are similar in name and nearly the same, but a house shoe is never a horseshoe, nor a horseshoe is a house shoe. Nor a chromosome #2 person is a nearly chromosome #2 primate...

Even the chromosome's worth of bone link is only nearly so. So close, yet so far away.

There's also the fact that only people have 23 chromosomes, while all primates have 24. That 24th could be the animal chromosome, that people just don't have.

Not quite----we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other primates have 24 pairs. Remember post #34? Our chromosome #2 is a fusion of a chromosome pair which remained separate in other primates, with an inactive centromere corresponding to chimpanzee chromosome #13.

Thanks for the correction. Only human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while primates have 24 pairs. Our chromosome 2 fusion is ours alone, and the unfused primates are theirs alone.

Chromosomes remaining separate in other primates, is ideological indoctrination 101. Saying humans are primates, and speaking of human and other primates is ideology alone. The biological science is that humans' 23 chromosome pairs, cannot possibly be primate 24 pairs.

The same as no human blood can be that of a primate. Ideology always stops short of practical exercise, especially when life and death is at stake. No 'human beings are animals' ideologues would ever request a blood transfusion from their other primate relations.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #134]

Every pseudo-article for the big bang, is 90% instruction on the expanding universe, 9% speculation about a gaseous pre-universe, and 1% tucked away admission, that there's no evidence for it.

The same hypocrisy is shown by human evolutionary ideologues, who say there is no missing link to biological evolution, as though that applies to human evolution, that has no link of any human-primate skeletal remains.

When there is evidence of a pre-universal gas, without shining stars. Then I want to see it. Dittoes for any skeletal remains of a human that is a primate. Not of old primate remains that only have distant similarity to human skeletons...

We see evidence of how stars are formed----out of gas. We see evidence of our relation to other primates----a pair of our primate chromosomes fused together.

We have no evidence of a human being ever formed out of dust.

We have no evidence of a human being ever formed out of the rib of another human being.

We have no evidence that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece of fruit is the reason that we all wear clothes.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
---Galileo

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #136]

The same as no human blood can be that of a primate. Ideology always stops short of practical exercise, especially when life and death is at stake. No 'human beings are animals' ideologues would ever request a blood transfusion from their other primate relations.

I addressed the blood issue in post #120.