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 #189]

Evidence suggests, is never evidence proven. Another tour guide of similarity, that not arrives at 100% proof.

Scientific theories are not presented as proofs, as they remain open to modification on new evidence.

What's the 100% proof of the book of Genesis?

That's always the case with new speciation of a whole new creature, that is wholly separate from any other going before.

We are not wholely separate from the Great Apes. We have most of the same primate chromosomes.

What will never be found, is any positive skeletal or biological link between any human being on earth, to any animal on earth.

The biological links are our chromosomes.


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

.....which confirms that Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

and they can't possibly have any common ancestor that began to uncross-breed.

The point is that they had a common reptile ancestor which evolved toward a bird.

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

You yourself pointed out that reptiles are not birds and birds are not reptiles, so a bird-like reptile would have evolved and thus would have a link to birds. So again, Archaeopteryx must have evolved.

Which includes flying fish.

Flying fish are fish. They have appendages adapted for gliding, like dolphins are mammals with appendages adapted for swimming.

No human can be an animal of any kind, because human blood and seed is not animal blood and seed, and vica versa.

Blood and seed.....blood and seed.....

If you can be repeditive, so can I:

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.


You're just repeating your statements without addressing my arguments or answering my questions.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #185]

This entire response is just another strawman argument. Sorry, but I'm growing tired of these responses from you, and I will not continue to engage them.

[RBD]

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'

False.

Humans are members of a particular sub-group of mammals known as the primates (Order Primates).

Just because pseudo-scientists claim humans are animals without proving it, and then giving humans an animal name, does not make humans animals, nor need to accept animal names.

Any human that would like to join the 'humans are animals' ideology, are free to do so. And free to live like it too, so long as they don't run afoul of criminal law, which of course only applies to humans, not animals.

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

All these physical and biological similarities, are accurate science, but they never arrive at any 100% proof, that humans beings are primates.

If any of the skeletal or biological science could ever confirm proof at any point, of any human being a primate, then they would simply say so. That specific point of proof could also be stated matter of factly. There would be no need to send people on more scientific tour guides of similarities alone, that fail to prove at any point, that a human being and any animal are one and the same creature.

Human blood and seed is not animal, nor has ever been animal, therefore, humans cannot be classified as any animal species, nor have any common past ancestry nor present kinship.

The parameters of new speciation, where there is no common ancestry nor present sharing of life's blood and interbreeding, has been made specifically to account for human beings on an earth full of animals, but are not any animal.

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!

Your personal issues blind you to the simple fact, that humans not being animals, includes fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, primates, etc...since they are all animals.

[RBD]

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

You call us ideologues for understanding middle school biology, but if there's some qualitative difference between a human cell and animal cell, how should one tell the difference?

I've explained enough times that all flesh on earth is the same: natural and mortal. It's the blood and seed that define the species, and human blood and seed is not animal.

Humans are not animals, nor can be called a species of animals, except by ideology corrupting the science of speciation.

How about for a starting point, human cells contain mitochondria. That means that by biological definition, humans are eukaryotes. Do you agree that humans are eukaryotes?

Humans have natural flesh, the same as all flesh on earth, including the eukaryote cells of humans, animals, and plants. Humans are not animals are not plants.

Humans have their own unique blood and sperm, that no animal on earth has. The blood and seed tell the story of speciation, not the sameness of all flesh.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #193]

Just because pseudo-scientists claim humans are animals without proving it, and then giving humans an animal name, does not make humans animals, nor need to accept animal names.

Calling scientists "pseudo-scientists" doesn't make them pseudo-scientists.

All these physical and biological similarities, are accurate science, but they never arrive at any 100% proof, that humans beings are primates.

There's more evidence that human beings are primates than there is that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece of fruit is the reason we all wear clothes.

......or can you present 100% proof of the book of Genesis?

If any of the skeletal or biological science could ever confirm proof at any point, of any human being a primate, then they would simply say so. That specific point of proof could also be stated matter of factly. There would be no need to send people on more scientific tour guides of similarities alone, that fail to prove at any point, that a human being and any animal are one and the same creature.

You can present the book of Genesis as fact----but where's the 100% proof?

Human blood and seed is not animal, nor has ever been animal, therefore, humans cannot be classified as any animal species, nor have any common past ancestry nor present kinship.

You begin with the assumption that human blood and seed have not "ever been animal", so your argument is circular.

The parameters of new speciation, where there is no common ancestry nor present sharing of life's blood and interbreeding, has been made specifically to account for human beings on an earth full of animals, but are not any animal.

It's been pointed out repeatedly through beavers/groundhogs [rodents] and gorillas/chimpanzees [primates] that species can have different blood and no interbreeding and still fall into the same classification. That's how humans can be primates, and you can't logically argue against that because the same blood-and-seed differences exist between gorilla and chimpanzee and they're both primates. If blood-and-seed differences don't keep those species from being primates, then blood-and-seed differences don't keep us from being primates either.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #147]

If not, then once again, your ideology fails in the face of practical sense, so that you will not say animals are people, and now also redefine being morally human, in order make animals moral, but not sinful.

Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were they moral but not sinful?

I have to hand it to you. A nice bit of sophistry. 1st, Being moral means being righteous or sinful. No animal is ever called righteous or sinful. Animals are not moral, because they are not human with the power to do righteously or sinfully.

2nd, Yes, man and woman in the garden were morally righteous and sinless, before transgressing the law of God.

Animals also have no law other than nature to obey: Unlike humans, they cannot be transgressors of God's law.

All of this of course is self-explanatory, and never would be argued, except when some people say humans are animals, and animals are moral...

[Clownboat]

Anyone that accepts established science understands that human blood and seed is in fact, 'animal'

False.

Since you failed to show that all of my supplied sources were mistaken, much less even in question, your reply must be rejected.

Humans are members of a particular sub-group of mammals known as the primates (Order Primates).

Just because pseudo-scientists claim humans are animals without proving it, and then giving humans an animal name, does not make humans animals, nor need to accept animal names.

Humans are animals. This has been demonstrated many times from many sources. It is acknowledged that you reject established science and continue to do so.

Any human that would like to join the 'humans are animals' ideology, are free to do so. And free to live like it too, so long as they don't run afoul of criminal law, which of course only applies to humans, not animals.

Quite the emotional reply. I suppose if logic fails, this is all you have left though.

All these physical and biological similarities, are accurate science, but they never arrive at any 100% proof, that humans beings are primates.

Humans are animals. We know that you reject the science that explains why this is the case. Did you know that flat earthers also deny established science and that they then get to pretend that they know more than the experts? Do you see how that is a powerful feeling and why they would want to maintain that feeling?

If any of the skeletal or biological science could ever confirm proof at any point, of any human being a primate, then they would simply say so.

Proof is for math and whiskey. You need to learn how science works.
Either way, many sources and the reasons as to why have already been provided. You just reject it, like a flat earther does I note.

That specific point of proof could also be stated matter of factly. There would be no need to send people on more scientific tour guides of similarities alone, that fail to prove at any point, that a human being and any animal are one and the same creature.

Again, proof is only for math and whiskey. Scientific claims must be falsifiable. When falsified, the claim is rejected. This has not happened for human biology though. You simply reject if for religious reasons.

Human blood and seed is not animal, nor has ever been animal, therefore, humans cannot be classified as any animal species, nor have any common past ancestry nor present kinship.

Ya, ya, ya and the earth is flat because NASA and fisheye lenses and stuff.

The parameters of new speciation, where there is no common ancestry nor present sharing of life's blood and interbreeding, has been made specifically to account for human beings on an earth full of animals, but are not any animal.

Right, is NASA behind this conspiracy that only you seem to know about as well? Maybe it's the our lizard rulers!

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!

Your personal issues blind you to the simple fact, that humans not being animals, includes fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, primates, etc...since they are all animals.

My personal issues now!
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

You reject established science for religious reasons. Why not double down and reject the shape of the earth while your at it?

[RBD]

Noted. You state a) empathy, b) fairness, and d) justice are deemed "moral" topics. I have also demonstrated that other animals present with these actions of a) , b), and d).

When you begin to talk about animals behaving immorally, then you'll at least become consistent with saying animals behave morally.

Then they can sin like people.

What exactly is a "sin"?

Rhetoricians call this the game of word definitions. Like when the guy said, "Well, that depends on what your definition of is, is."

The Bible calls it doting about words to no profit.

If animals can do right, but not do unrighteousness, then your definition of morality is amoral.

As stated prior, 'morality' is a complex topic.

Rhetoricians call this one the game of making the simple complex.

The Bible calls it craftiness.

But, in your case, you would have us believe that morality is not a thing if a God does not exist.

And rhetoricians call this a strawman. Bring in a topic that has no relevance.

More craftiness...The common thread is to confuse the argument, rather than give a simple answer to the obvious.

This is your axe to grind, not mine.

Hence, finally grind down to no answer given.

If a), b), and d) are deemed 'moral' topics, then we know other animals also commit 'moral' actions.

And finally, rhetoricians call this cutting off debate by repeating oneself, rather than answering a debate challenge.

The Bible calls it fear of correction.

Children call it taking one's ball and going home. Monty Python calls it running away...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #150]

Must be the newly created chromosome fusion, that separates humans from all animals on the earth. Maybe that new creation is what makes the blood and sperm completely different, and non interchangeable between man and beast with no common ancestry.

Since the fused chromosomes are primate chromosomes, the "newly created chromosome fusion" created a new primate.

That would be the ideological leap. Logic simply says that newly fused chromosome is of a new creature, that is not a primate. Evolution would theorize, not anymore a primate. Creation simply says not a primate at all. The thing that makes the difference between man and primates, cannot be used to prove men are primates...

Chromosomes aside, human blood and seed separates humans from all animals, without any common ancestry nor present kinship.

(For clarity----the video explains that the fusion taking place with primate chromosomes is exactly what shows that humans and other primates do have a common ancestry.)

Or, since we are talking about human chromosomes, and not primates, then the fusion taking place with human chromosomes is exactly what shows that humans are not primates. Once again, chromosomes of humans, that are not of primates, cannot make humans primates.

And by blood and seed, no human has any past nor present family relation.

"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/

The medical practice of blood transfusion is not the issue. The fact that humans can transfer life-giving blood to humans, and animals to animals, but not between humans and animals, means humans are not animals.

[POI]

Noted. You state a) empathy, b) fairness, and d) justice are deemed "moral" topics. I have also demonstrated that other animals present with these actions of a) , b), and d).

When you begin to talk about animals behaving immorally, then you'll at least become consistent with saying animals behave morally.

If you agree a), b), and d) are considered acts of morality, and not just acts of instinct, then you must logically also admit that such said animals commit moral acts. Unless you instead now want to deny that such said animals actually commit acts of a), b), and d) at all?

Rhetoricians call this the game of word definitions. Like when the guy said, "Well, that depends on what your definition of is, is."

The Bible calls it doting about words to no profit.

No sir. You are placing the cart before the horse. If we agree to the classical definition for the word 'sin' -- (listed below), then this essentially means any act which displeases god is a 'sin'. Well, without demonstrating a god or god(s), for which one can displease, you are placing the cart before the horse. So again, what do YOU mean by the term 'sin'? Is it the classical definition, or are you referring to some other definition?

(i.e.) sin - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Rhetoricians call this one the game of making the simple complex.

The Bible calls it craftiness.

Nah. In this case, I call your response straight up dodging. Yes, morality is complex. But in your case, to be logical with yourself, animals commit moral acts. Unless you now wish to augment accordingly?

And rhetoricians call this a strawman. Bring in a topic that has no relevance.

Your entire motive here is to try and prove the existence of a god. So, objective morals can exist without a god?

More craftiness...The common thread is to confuse the argument, rather than give a simple answer to the obvious.

I gave the simple answer. You just do not like the logic behind it. In your case, you are now stepping all over yourself. Unless you now wish to tweak some prior positions.

And finally, rhetoricians call this cutting off debate by repeating oneself, rather than answering a debate challenge.

Nope. Logic calls your conclusion inconsistent. And you, no likey...

Children call it taking one's ball and going home. Monty Python calls it running away...

Thanks for the baseless analogies.