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...)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

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

If you have to skirt around my questions by dismissing them as "ideology", that's not my problem.

Maybe it came across a bit strong, but I'm honestly trying to sympathize with how much this bothers you.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #178]

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.

Again, the expansion of the universe and the observation of stars being formed from gas in the universe constitute evidence that the earliest stars formed from gas in the early universe.

All that just to try to make the book of Genesis come out right....

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.

That doesn't demonstrate the instantaneous creation of a fully-formed adult human out of nothing but dust.


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.

Ignorant of science? How much cloning technology would have been available in the Garden of Eden? You can't dress up a faith-claim as science that convincingly.


"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.

Galileo certainly ran afoul of ideologues. His astronomical observations put him in hot water with ecclesiastical authorities who had their minds made up that their reading of their scripture was the one-and-only possible way things could be, despite any and all observable evidence to the contrary. They had to force him into retreat because they were so deeply terrified that his discoveries would topple the walls of their liturgical universe.

Seem familiar?

[RBD]

[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.

That's because humans are all one species.

Mt response will be in 161.

You acknowledge humans all have one and the same blood, that is not animal blood. Humans therefore cannot be an animal species.

Applying the term species to humans is mostly ideological, since it's entirely academic. Species is commonly related to the animal kingdom, and so to call humans a 'species' is an ideological effort to still imply humans are animals by name alone.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #139]

If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus not passing on the knowledge of good and evil to the rest of us, would we be animals?

I don't deal in fantasy mysticism of some fruit that keeps people from being animals, or makes people animals.

This is written about in Genesis 1, which you say is supported by evidence, and you offered distinction between good and evil as the distinction between "animals" and "people".

Which is self-evidently true, so that no one has attempted to say that animals can sin and do unrighteousness.

If you're willing to dismiss that as "fantasy mysticism", then you should be willing to dispense with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Dismissing a false reading, that would make the Bible mystical, is not dismissing the Bible. It defends the literal reading in the process.

I.e. a useless mystical interpretation of the Bible, based upon fantasy ideology, does not make the Bible a mystical fantasy.

There are some professed believers in the Bible that do the same thing. By rogue 'spiritualism' and symbolism, they turn the literal record and prophecy of the Bible into just more fables of men. This is specially true with the coming of the Lord to earth:

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

[RBD]

Then it's subjective ideology, that is subject to the interpretation of the ideologue.

The only objective science is that human beings have similar physical characteristics to certain animals, like the primates. 'Looking like' primates is not being primates. Looking like conclusions is ideological, not science.

Biology does not conclude evolution is true because we "look like them". Please stop putting words into my mouth.

Proven biological evolution is not unproven primate-human evolution. Stop talking like they are.

Of course not, since humans are not animals, nor primates. remove the ideological blinders, and we see the nonsense of the question.

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed. Animals of the earth are as alien to human ancestry, as ET's. (Though speculation about human ET ancestry would have more credibility. Since we don't know what their blood and seed is, whether it be compatible with humans, or animals, or a third unique to their own)

The only thing physical thing man and beast share on earth, is our common natural flesh and mortality:

Have you even watched the 4-minute video? It demonstrates quite a lot.

It demonstrates several things:

1. That the speaker either doesn't know that molecular science is not the science of speciation, or he is just another layman confused about the difference between simple biological evolution and primate-human evolution.

A species is determined by blood and seed for interbreeding life within the species. Humans cannot be any animal species, because our blood and seed is separate from all animals on the earth.

Proven biological evolution is inner-species transition. Primate-human evolution can only be by new speciation, with the new having no common blood and seed ancestry of the old.

2. That qualifying a less than 100% match, as a match, or as if it were a match, is not infallible science but promotional ideology. As in forensics, only 100% match proves a special relationship in speciation.

As with physical looks and biological similarities, human and animal blood looks the same, smells the same, and decays the same, but the plasmal differences between us, completely separates human life from animal life, as well as the seed difference between human and animal breeding.

Laymen can continue arguing similarities between humans and some animals, but they are only arguing the obvious outer looks, or the learned inner qualities. But until they argue the difference in blood and seed, they are not talking about speciation, much less about any primate-human evolution. All they're doing is talking about similarities, that cannot possibly bridge the irrevocable gap between humans and animals, and man and primates.

Gen 2 of the Bible confirms the legitimate science of taxonomy, by man naming all the animals, but not naming himself as an animal.

That sounds swell. Too bad you cannot back it up.

Gen 2 is historical back up, alone with most of human taxonomical history. Only recently have ideologues begun to pervert taxonomy, by calling themselves animals and giving themselves animal names.

I don't credit that with the ancient science of legitimate taxonomy.

I noticed you omitted a lot of post 104 and also skipped post 105. Is there a reason?

You either missed the responses, or some things are already gone back and forth enough.

I am moving in the direction of only debating the science of speciation by blood and seed, as well as the new speciation debate for primate-human evolution. I'm winding down on the old useless arguments of less-than 100% similarities, and proven simple biological evolution. They are a smokescreen for laymen that don't apply. (That would include more useless arguments about present universal expansion, rather than the speculation about a pre-universe of hot gas without stars.)

Speciation is by blood and seed, because without compatible blood and seed, they are completely separate species. New speciation separated from the old, is necessary for human evolution, since humans presently have common no blood and seed kinship nor ancestry with any animal on earth.

New speciation is therefore by definition new creation, just like Adam suddenly appearing on earth after all the animals, with without kinship of any animal species. Sort of like Melchizedek appearing to Abraham as out of nowhere, without father, without mother, without descent. Having no previous days as any animal species on earth...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #183]

You acknowledge humans all have one and the same blood, that is not animal blood. Humans therefore cannot be an animal species.

Humans do not all have one and the same blood type. Neither do other creatures.

Cats have two.
Dogs have over eight.
Chickens have thirteen.


Again, in case you've conveniently forgotten it:

"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/

And speaking of blood types----

"Distinguishing just how close the blood groups of primates are to humans depends on how closely you look. For example, testing blood samples using human monoclonal antibodies, you would find that bonobos have exclusively type A blood; chimpanzees are predominantly A with smaller number having type O; Orangutans from Borneo have all four blood types, A, B, AB and O.

However, gorillas do not have A, B or AB, so by default they were thought to be type O. But by looking at the molecular level, the gene segments of gorillas reveal completely different blood groups not related to the ABO system."
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/jun-12- ... -1.6062427

So....

The gorilla and the chimpanzee have entirely different blood groups. They're not the same species, but they're both primates.

The beaver and the groundhog cannot interbreed. They're not the same species, but they're both rodents.

Great Ape and human have different [though, in some cases, similar] blood and cannot interbreed. We're not the same species, but we're all primates.

The "blood and seed" argument is not holding up.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #184]

Dismissing a false reading, that would make the Bible mystical, is not dismissing the Bible. It defends the literal reading in the process.

Then you assert that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece if fruit is literally why we all wear clothes?

How did the snake know good from evil when the first humans didn't? Snakes are animals.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #141]

Ideology is the skewing of science, in order to fit personal beliefs.

Ideology is the skewing of anything in order to fit personal beliefs.

Give a scientific example of a human being formed out of dust.

Give a scientific example of a human being formed out of the rib of another human being.

Answered in a future post.

There's a lot more evidence that human beings are primates.

There's only one direct proven evidence about humans and primates: Humans cannot be a animal species, since human blood and seed is not animal.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #143]

And the biological fact remains, that we cannot possibly have common ancestry with any creature, that has no common blood and seed.

I doubt that plesiadapiforms could have cross-bred with modern primates, but the evidence tells us that they developed into modern primates.
https://www.livescience.com/earliest-pr ... vered.html

Evidence suggests, is never evidence proven. Another tour guide of similarity, that not arrives at 100% proof. Like a geometric infinity equation, where the geometric line forever approaches the axis in an upward or downward trajectory, but never ever touches, much less cross the axis line. So it is with all these attempts to prove something, that is never 'quite' proven. They are forever almost there, but never there.

That's always the case with new speciation of a whole new creature, that is wholly separate from any other going before. New speciation is not the problem, but it's assigning evolution to the new creature is the problem. It's not possible to 'evolutionize' a whole new and separate species on earth.

Simple species evolution, and cross-species hybridation, is not only proven in fossils and biology, but also in present day observation. But new speciation can only be explained as new creation, which by definition, is a whole new creature apart from any older creature on earth.

Which Gen 1 says happened on the 6th day after all the animals are already created in their own variety of species.

Another dilemma,[9] related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth".

A certain set of conditions, including rapid burial and a low level of oxygen, has to exist for fossil remains to be preserved. It isn't going to happen to every member of every species.

No one says they will, nor expect to. What will never be found, is any positive skeletal or biological link between any human being on earth, to any animal on earth.

If there ever were such a 100% proof, then it would simply be stated, rather than offering up another 'almost-there-but-never-quite-there' tour guide of similarities alone...

Reptiles and birds cannot cross-breed, so archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Reptile and birds cannot cross-breed because reptiles are not birds, and birds are not reptiles, and they can't possibly have any common ancestor that began to uncross-breed.

And a bird-like reptile, that has no link to birds, is not a bird, but a reptile. Which includes flying fish.

Humans and other primates having a common ancestor is a piece of cake next to that.

Except no such piece is ever simply given without the usual similarities tour. Go ahead and write this all so simple piece of cake down, where there is a primate-human, and I'll eat it. Until then, there are only primates that have similar characteristics of humans, and then there are humans.

No human can be an animal of any kind, because human blood and seed is not animal blood and seed, and vica versa. And trying to prove human blood and seed was ever animal blood and seed, is impossible. If any animal blood and seed is found in any creature, it's not human. Why not? Because human blood and seed is not animal.

The new speciation separate from anything going before, is to account for human beings on earth, that are not any animal of the earth. As well as being the last new creation on earth after all the animals. There were wholly new creatures appearing on earth before man, but no more new ones appearing after man. And none of them evolutionized there way to wholly depart from one, to become an all new creature unto itself.

Fish are not mammals are not birds are not primates are not humans...

[Clownboat]

There's only one direct proven evidence about humans and primates: Humans cannot be a animal species, since human blood and seed is not animal.

Anyone that accepts established science understands that human blood and seed is in fact, 'animal' (a human animal, that is a primate, Mammalia and Eukaryota).
So once again, to challenge your claim:

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.

Does anyone find it odd that RBD doesn't take issue with humans being classified as mammal? A mammal is a vertebrate animal after all!