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]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

Biology shows that the blood of people is not the blood of any animal.

That's because humans are all one species.

Just to avoid the appearance of humans being animals by nomenclature, I prefer humans are all one creation on earth. 'Species' is too firmly attached to the animal kingdom, which does not include humans. Humans cannot be an animal species, because humans are not animals.

Humans can distantly look like some animals, but spiritually and biologically it's impossible for humans to be animals. Ideologues still saying so, must not only deny their own spiritual creation, but also deny the biology of their own blood and seed.

"Many animals do have different blood types and can even donate blood or receive blood transfusions, just like humans. And just like humans, animal blood types are determined by the presence or absence of different antigens on the surface of their red blood cells. However, their blood type systems vary by species and differ from human blood types."
https://www.lifeshare.org/do-animals-have-blood-types/

Exactly. Animals can transfuse their blood and interbreed, just like humans. But humans and animals cannot, because humans are not animals. Our spiritual common sense and physical biology says so.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #161]

Just to avoid the appearance of humans being animals by nomenclature, I prefer humans are all one creation on earth. 'Species' is too firmly attached to the animal kingdom, which does not include humans.

You may not like the catagorizing of the human species as Animalia, but that's irrelevant.

Humans cannot be an animal species, because humans are not animals.

Circular argument.

Animals can transfuse their blood and interbreed, just like humans. But humans and animals cannot, because humans are not animals.

That returns us to my earlier question:

Beavers and wolves cannot interbreed. Does this mean that beavers are not animals, or does it mean that wolves are not animals?


When death is near, animals like dogs and cats will often go off and find a secluded spot as if they know that their time has come. Being an animal with a spiritual sense isn't so bad, is it?