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?

[RBD]

If it were true, you'd be able to define a set of traits that identify animal cells in general, but that somehow doesn't include human beings.

Isa 40:6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

There's a difference between all flesh being naturally the same and mortal as grass. People and animals are as common grass in mortal substance of the earth.

It's the blood and seed that makes humans completely separate from all animals on earth, and their ancestry.

Spiritually and biologically humans are not animals, nor ever come from, nor become animals. Unless our blood and seed becomes animal blood and seed. Then we are animals, and there are no more human beings on earth.

You could simply exclude humans by definition, but that would be like defining "plant" to exclude maple trees.

That would be like excluding plants from the animal kingdom.

It's no more valid than giving old primate bones, the name of 'man' to identify them.

That's going the wrong way. Not all primates are "man." All "man" bones are primate bones, though.

Then man is primate, nor human. This is where the 'humans are animals' ideological endgame is complete: All humans are only animals.

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;

All bones on earth are made of the same biological material. A bone is a bone is a bone. There is only structural difference between bodies of flesh and bones.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Giving humans animal nomenclature and naming primate skeletal remains Cheddar 'Man', does not make the humans animals,

You're right. It's the humans having animal characteristics from the macro all the way down to the micro level that makes humans animals.

60% and 90% are not 100%. And the blood and seed of man is not at all the blood and seed of any animal on earth. Humans are only like animals in mortal flesh and atomic structure, like the earth and moon. The earth is not the moon, and humans are not animals.

Maybe Moonies believe humans are animals too.

nor primates of Cheddar men.

If Cheddar men are men, then they're primates as a matter of course. Not all primates are human, but all humans are primates.

Once again: This is where the 'humans are animals' ideological endgame is complete: All humans are only animals. In fact, less than animals, since some animals are not a common human.

Ideology is not scientific proof, but only ideological indoctrination.

That's why scientists leave ideology and indoctrination to churches.

Including the scientists that teach creationism? Or, are only the human animal scientists not ideological.

No more than making a planet a moon, which both have similar features of spherical shapes, that shine light, and have gravitational pull.

A moon orbits a planet. That's the definitional difference.

That's another similar trait, that does not make a moon a planet. Both planets and moons are orbiters. Stars are not.

Humans sharing traits with primates does not humans primates, no more than makes moons planets. Both humans and primates have flesh, the same as the earth and moon have dust. And the earth and moon have similar cores and geochemical make-up, the way humans and apes share a % of anatomical composition. But the body of the earth is still not that of the moon.

And giving a planet a moon name like Gaia Lunaris, doesn't make the planet a moon.

Right. Because it doesn't orbit another planet, which is what would make it a moon.

The planets orbit the sun. A planet is not a sun-moon.

Planets are not moons, is a fit analogy for humans are not animals.

1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

1Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Talking about human primates is as unscientific and meaningless as that of terrestrial moons.

So you assert. but I'm pretty sure you're terribly wrong. If you're right, you should be able to find something scientific that explains why humans aren't primates.

Spirit, blood, and seed. No common faith, life, nor breeding. Both spiritually and biologically, humans are not animals. Flesh, bones, out physical and internal composition similarity does not make a human an primate, nor a planet a moon.

Other than the Biblical biology of the common nature of all flesh on earth, all other similarities between men and apes are only near misses at best, like stars and moons. There is no moon star nor human primate.

Humans are totally primates.

Let an ideologue talk long enough: All humans are only animals.

And yet, there is the one biological data, that is not given by 'humans are animals' ideologues, which permanently separates all humans from the animals: The blood.

Not all animals have blood, but anything with blood is an animal.

Anything with human blood is human, and anything with animals blood is animal. Humans cannot be animals, because we don't have the same life's blood nor seed to interbreed.

Ideologues corrupt the science they pretend to represent. Especially those who only see animals on the earth, including all humans that are only more animals with the rest. I mean, like totally, ya know?

All men are created with the same one blood of all mankind, and is distinctly unique to men and women alone. Biology shows that the blood of people is not the blood of any animal.

Then you should be able to find some sort of biology text that supports your claim.

Ideologues corrupt their own science, because they don't know it. They only learn enough to talk like it, and then hang themselves out to dry.

[RBD]

Yes you have been answered. And I'll only answer once more: I don't care what readers of the Bible want to believe, or not, about the Book. I only believe what the Book says.

I know! This book has you believing that humans are a special creation and because of that claim, humans are not animals. It's not possible for me to care less about religious beliefs you happen to hold.

Clarification. When it comes to finding error in the Bible, I only care what the Bible says in order to judge it. What people believe about the Bible is meaningless to whether there is error in it or not. That includes what I may believe about it.

It's an objective study of the Bibles that judges it, not subjective opinions about what it says.

The debate is about whether the Bible has external direct evidence for what it states. Therefore, what it states is important to the debate. Anyone not caring what the Bibles states, has no part in this debate. Nor do they have any intelligent judgment about the Book, since they don't care what it says.

The Bible never speaks of Homo anything, nor Sapiens, nor Sapiens Sapiens.

Who cares what the Bible says on the matter?

Case in point.

When you care enough about what the Bible says, then we can continue in the debate about whether there is external evidence for it.

Otherwise, your uninformed debates about it are meaningless.

Afterall, if humans have 'scientific' animal names, then humans must be animals, right? I mean, it's science, right?

No

So, humans are not animals, and ought not be given an animal name of species? Then we have no debate.

and you should be embarrassed because words have meanings!

Exactly, which is why any human ought object to any person saying all humans are animals, and therefore need the name of an animal species.

an·i·mal
/ˈanəm(ə)l/
noun
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Good definition of an animal. With direct evidence of animals themselves on earth.

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.

Good definition of a man, with direct evidence of human beings ourselves. We are completely different from all animals on the earth, and have power to rule over them all.

New speciation speculates that the complete separation between man and animals, by blood, seed, and dominion, could be evolutionary. However, creation is more likely and evident.

It's not possible for any living creature to produce another living creature, that it can't transfuse blood nor breed with. Once it were done, there would be no more common ancestry. Also it would be impossible to prove, since it's already done.

Your claim is that humans are not living organism that feeds on organic matter,

By misrepresenting the arguments of others, ideologues show their willful blindness to any other argument.

I'll continue to do so, even if the latest 'humans are animals' movement makes animals legal 'persons'.

I'm tired of trying to educate you. Do some work yourself and look up the definition of these words that you obviously don't understand.

You're denying that the 'humans are animals' movement began transitioning to animals rights, and now are seeking to make animals legal persons?

Or, are you now ashamed of your own ideology, and trying to distance yourself from your more radical activist ideologues?

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.

Thank you. An individual person, not any individual animal.

Science is not like religion.

Science is not a religion, but ideological scientists change science into a religion. And corrupt the science in the process.

Primate-human evolution is an ideology of scientists, that corrupt biological evolution. The layman human evolutionist doesn't know the difference.

Inner species evolution, with transformation within a species, is true. New speciation of humans from primates, is false.

refuse to acknowledge animals are persons too.

Animals are not human beings.

Then humans are animals, is an ideology subject to inconsistent personal interpretation, rather than scientific fact and functional analyses.

If the human family is an animal family, but the animal family is not a human family, then the family is dysfunctional.

I would correct your thinking for you if I could.

Not with ideology. I've learned to defend against it in religion, as well as now in science.

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #163]

It's the blood and seed that makes humans completely separate from all animals on earth, and their ancestry.

You keep avoiding my question:

Are beavers and wolves unable to interbreed because beavers are not animals, or because wolves are not animals?

You could simply exclude humans by definition, but that would be like defining "plant" to exclude maple trees.

That would be like excluding plants from the animal kingdom.

Animals and plants differ on the cellular level and humans have animal cells, so that's an extremely weak analogy.