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]

The ideology of the first is by ignorance of the second.

You disbelieve that humans are primates. This belief you hold is delusional, because humans are in fact primates as has been shown. All you are doing is pretending to know more than the experts.

Species are separated by blood and breeding. Species that cannot interbreed are entirely different species. That's why elephants are not primates, nor are humans any animal species, including elephants and primates.

Human beings doe not share the same blood nor seed to live and interbreed with any animal species on earth. The use of the term 'species' is only academic if applied to human beings. It serves no practical purpose, since humans and animals are entirely different in blood and breeding.

Speciation is relevant to animals, because there are many different animal species, that each share their own blood and seed. However, since all human beings share the same one blood and seed, then speciation doesn't apply as it does with animals.

Your ego is in the way of your learning sadly.

My common sense and training in ideological indoctrination saves me from pseudo-scientific ideologies, that turn a blind eye to certain facts of their own science. 'Humans are primates' is as scientific as eugenics. Eugenics says that humans are not only a species of animal, but also have different human 'species' based upon different blood. They at least know enough science to understand that speciation is by blood and seed, not by looking alike.

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


The Bible debunks both eugenics and human animalism: All humans have the same one blood, and all animals have their own nonhuman blood. The same for the one seed of all men.

Eugenics is the practical arm of the 'humans are animals' ideology: they euthanize the unnecessary elderly, weak, handicapped, and deformed for natural selection with help. Human animology is not just godless, but is also very destructive in practice. It begins by indoctrinating people into thinking being human is not special, and being animal is inevitable:

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;

Eph 4:19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

The characteristics for primates that were supplied to you are factual.

Looking alike does not make one creature the same as another. It's the blood and seed that determine speciation. "looks like' is for children, not for science. Speciation is not just skin deep.

Conclusions based on things 'Looking alike' is for children, not science.

Wrong and demonstrably so:
Studying animals based on how they look is a crucial aspect of zoology and taxonomy. This field, known as morphology, involves the study of the shape and structure of organisms.

We're not talking about zoological features and nomenclature based upon looks and shapes, but scientific speciation. Humans are primates, only if human and primate blood and seed are the same for interbreeding. Which isn't the scientific case between humans and any animal on earth.

'Looks like' is fine for zoos, not for determining species.

Which is why look alike ideology is for you.

Words have meaning. The above reads like childish slander, but to be honest,

You promote a science based upon looking alike, and ideology as a science, and then you are slandered by your own 'scientific' look alike ideology?

I don't think either of us know what 'look alike ideology' is.

It's the pseudo-science that you are promoting, without all the pseudo-scientific garnishing.

Your claims are without evidence, but I acknowledge you hold them and notice how they disagree with established science.

Humans are members of a particular sub-group of mammals known as the primates (Order Primates). (The why this is the case is in the link if you want to learn why this is the case).
https://australian.museum/learn/science ... -primates/

Humans and monkeys are both primates.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/f ... -questions

How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?
Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It confirms that humans are primates
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/h ... e-primates

Humans are primates–a diverse group that includes some 200 species.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/perman ... g-primates

Hearing you continue to reject established science is as interesting as listening to a flat earther pretend that they know more about the shape of our earth than the experts.
I acknowledge that you reject established science, but I can't respect you for doing it.

[RBD]

I have read the Bible from cover to cover. I was a born again, tongue talking, street evangelizing missionary to numerous countries Christian for decades. Your words are ridiculously unfounded and just a weak attempt at poisoning the well (something you are doing a lot of).

Impressive. This explains alot.

I'll stick to the specifics of the argument.

I'm glad you have learned how ridiculously unfounded your words were and trust you will cease poisoning the well in place of debating.

You're the one glorifying your past religious work, as though that makes you now an authority on why man is not created in the image of God. As though you're own doublemindedness can is notably trustworthy.

Or, did you always secretly disbelieve we are created in God's image? Or, are you saying that man is created an animal in the image of God?

Rom 1:23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

People that believe in the Big Bang, instead of Gen 1.

There is evidence for this bang you speak of, therefore belief is not needed, just acceptance of what we have found. However, the information must be understood and that may be hard for some and too much work for others.

Which is an sophistical way of saying the direct evidence doesn't exist, but we can still say it does, just not by 'faith'.

Every argument offered about the Big Bang proposal is 90% about recently proven universal expansion, 9% about resultant Big Bang speculation, and 1%, buried in the middle, is about how direct evidence for the Big Bang doesn't exist.

Out of all the available god concepts, do you think mankind got one or more of them correct?

This is further redundant proof that 'humans are animals' is an ideology. All humans are animals, therefore all belief in God is only a concept of human animals. Just monkey chatter.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #169]

Species that cannot interbreed are entirely different species.

Entirely different species can still have a common ancestor.

That's why elephants are not primates, nor are humans any animal species, including elephants and primates.

Permit me to update my previous question about beavers and wolves:

Are beavers and groundhogs unable to interbreed because beavers are not rodents or because groundhogs are not rodents?
(They're both rodents.)

Now apply the same logic to humans and other primates.


Remember the last thing the presenter said in the chromosome video? He believes in a designer, but not in a deceptive designer. If the Creator wanted us to believe that we're not primates, why were we created with a fused chromosome pair which makes us look like we share ancestry with the great apes?

[RBD]

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?

And the fact that you can change your mind and do the opposite.

The spirit of man is power of reason. The spirit of animals is only instinctual. The light of man is changeable by man. The light of an animal is fixed by nature.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:

I find this hard to believe

And the fact that you can find anything believable or unbelievable.

Humans are not animals, and animals have no faith, unbelief, nor career path.

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.

Zoology and anatomy do not determine species.

Speciation is by blood and seed to interbreed and live as a species. Humans are not an animal species. Different animal species can have cross-bred hybrids, but not humans with any animal species.

No minotaur, centaurs, nor gorgons.

[RBD]

[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're bothered by people not buying into your ideology, then that's your psychological problem, not mine.

[Clownboat]

You disbelieve that humans are primates. This belief you hold is delusional, because humans are in fact primates as has been shown. All you are doing is pretending to know more than the experts. Your ego is in the way of your learning sadly.
I say all this because humans, being primates does not need to affect your religious beliefs,

This is what happens when people start buying into ideological generalizations: All humans are animals. Therefore, all religion of humans is meaningless. Which is true for many humans with meaningless religion, who give lip service to God and being animals at the same time:

Now you are being too heavenly to be of any earthly good (in this debate specifically as I'm not questioning your human value).

I say this because when I pointed out that humans being primates doesn't need to affect your religious beliefs, your religious beliefs still have gotten in your way.
I acknowledge that you reject that humans are primates for religious reasons. One day you will be dead and we will have educated the next generation though. The same thing that had to take place once we discovered that the earth was not at the center of our solar system.

<Snipped a Bible verse>
Your Bible verse hold no sway over me and you using it as a club is noted. A Nerf club that is.

Such superficiality is only for the religious and ideological who 'unify' both the professors and deniers of God alike. It's a lukewarm 'kinder gentler' version of true human animalism, where the ideological leadership allows for no God nor religion at all. As well as the believers in true religion, where humans beings are created in the image of God, and not animals.

Perhaps you should grab a soap box and a street corner for you to then shout your beliefs at people. This is a debate site and you sully it with such meaningless statements. To clarify, meaningless in the way it would be meaningless for me to threaten adults that they wont get presents from Santa Claus if they don't heed my words. You might as well be hitting me with a Nerf club (the Bible says) and threatening me with Santa Clause you Santa Clause denier.

Is it meaningful for me to call you a Santa Clause denier? Did it hit home? Did I 'win' at debate?
Please self reflect...

[Clownboat]

You're the one glorifying your past religious work, as though that makes you now an authority on why man is not created in the image of God. As though you're own doublemindedness can is notably trustworthy.

I'm sorry that my past religious beliefs and knowledge about the Bible offend you. I suppose it does make me a bit of an authority on the matter though now that you mention it.

Or, did you always secretly disbelieve we are created in God's image? Or, are you saying that man is created an animal in the image of God?

You need to calm down and count to 10.
This is what I have been saying and have been providing evidence for:
"Humans are primates"

Your emotional reaction is leading you to these false conclusions. When discussing the scientific classification for humans, why would I consult your god concept after all?

<Snipped a Bible verse as it is not any sort of an authority>

Which is an sophistical way of saying the direct evidence doesn't exist, but we can still say it does, just not by 'faith'.

Please re-read what I actually said and try to keep you emotions out of it if you are able.
Copy/paste: "There is evidence for this bang you speak of, therefore belief is not needed, just acceptance of what we have found."

Every argument offered about the Big Bang proposal is 90% about recently proven universal expansion, 9% about resultant Big Bang speculation, and 1%, buried in the middle, is about how direct evidence for the Big Bang doesn't exist.

Since there is evidence for the Big Bang and since I even provided you with ways to falsify it, I will ignore your false conclusion above. I don't care if you don't accept the Big Bang by the way, but I will combat your lies.

Out of all the available god concepts, do you think mankind got one or more of them correct?

This is further redundant proof that 'humans are animals' is an ideology.

You may have finally got something right!
i·de·ol·o·gy
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. - See human biology.

All humans are animals, therefore all belief in God is only a concept of human animals. Just monkey chatter.

I accept this (outside of you alluding to humans being monkeys), but to make it more accurate, you should allude to god concepts. You make it sound like there is only one god concept available and reality does not reflect this.

[RBD]

[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.

When there is evidence of a pre-universal gas, without shining stars. Then I want to see it.

We see evidence of how stars are formed----out of gas.

Which is evidence of new stars from gas, in a present universe of gas and stars. There is no evidence of any pre-universe of gas alone without stars.

Every pseudo-article for the big bang, is 90% instruction on the present expanding universe of gas and stars, 9% speculation about a gaseous pre-universe without stars, with 1% tucked away admission, that there's no evidence for it.

We see evidence of our relation to other primates----a pair of our primate chromosomes fused together.

Neither zoology nor microbiology is the science of speciation.

A species is determined by blood and breeding. Without interbreeding with the same life's blood, species are not the same. Human blood and seed is apart from all animals of the earth, so that we cannot interbreed and live with any animal. Humans are not an animal species.

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

All natural flesh is made of dust, and so returns to dust. All that remains of the fleshy body is bones.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

All that remains of the fleshy body in the dust, is bones.

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

While cloning is still infant, stem cells are a medical practice. The evidence of the latter proves the possibility of the former.

The problem with ideology, is that it's ignorant of the sciences it pretends to represent.

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.

Nor do we have scientific evidence, that it's not at all possible. Especially with cloning, where there is evidence it's entirely possible.

"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

That's why he wasn't an ideologue. Which he attributes to his faith in God. And would never agree humans are animals. The 'humans are animals' ideology is a relatively modern offshoot of old human godlessness.

[Clownboat]

And the fact that you can change your mind and do the opposite.

Sorry, but this sentence doesn't relay any meaning so I'm not sure how to respond.

The spirit of man is power of reason. The spirit of animals is only instinctual.

Since other animals outside of humans can reason, you have defeated yourself.

The light of man is changeable by man. The light of an animal is fixed by nature.

Now you are just using silly words! Please define 'light' as you use it here.

<Snipped an irrelevant Bible verse>

And the fact that you can find anything believable or unbelievable.

Sorry, but this sentence doesn't relay any meaning so I'm not sure how to respond.

Humans are not animals, and animals have no faith, unbelief, nor career path.

This is wrong and demonstrably so. Humans, which are animals as you have learned do in fact employ faith (sadly), have unbelief and many do have career paths.
I acknowledge that you reject scientific human classifications for religious reasons. I totally acknowledge this, I just can't respect it (this is where you slap a label on me and go on ignoring this criticism).

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.

Zoology and anatomy do not determine species.

Derp! You don't want to acknowledge the commonalities, do you? Is there some religious belief preventing you? Do I know what a rhetorical question is?

Speciation is by blood and seed to interbreed and live as a species. Humans are not an animal species.

Humans are animals that can interbreed with other human animals. Your two sentences above are non sequiturs.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Different animal species can have cross-bred hybrids, but not humans with any animal species.

This statement is false as stated. Only some animal species can cross breed.

No minotaur, centaurs, nor gorgons.

This kind of reply suggests that you are not following along very well since no one has argued for such things.

[Clownboat]

[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're bothered by people not buying into your ideology, then that's your psychological problem, not mine.

i·de·ol·o·gy
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

psy·cho·log·i·cal
of, affecting, or arising in the mind; related to the mental and emotional state of a person.

Translation of RBD's words from above:
If you're bothered by people not buying into your science of ideas, specifically the study and origin of humans, then that's your mental and emotional state, not mine.

What that response has to do with noting the commonalities between humans and primates is lost on me. It's almost as if random words that have nothing to do with what was quoted is being typed.