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...)

[POI]

That's if the remains are human, and if the dating is accurate.

You present with absolutely no rebuttal here. I've already stated the reason(s) humans are demonstrated to be much older than 6K years ago, in post 105.

All the chromosomes, DNA, etc... in humans are human. Not primate. Similarities mean being similar. Only 100% match means being the same. And the blood and seed of humans are all human, not animal at all. The blood and seed of animals is only of animals, not human. Humans cannot be an animal, nor an animal species.

You either still a) represent with a genuine misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology even puts forth, or, b) are purposefully 'joshing' me. This goes all the way back to post 104, and so-forth...

[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.

Spiritually and biologically humans are not animals, nor ever come from, nor become animals.

If it's biological, then how would I tell a human cell from any other animal cell?

Natural flesh is common as dirt, and all returns to the dirt like grass. Therefore, similar skin doesn't prove anything, except that all natural creatures have it.

The comparisons in skeleton, DNA, chromosomes, etc... are only studies in similarity. The science of similarities is accurate enough, but they never make a match between humans and any animals. We can teach how humans and animals are similar in outer and inner characteristics, not that any human is matched with any animal.

And the blood and seed separation between humans and all animals, proves no human can be an animal, nor an animal species.

[Difflugia]

Then what biologically distinguishes human cells from animal cells?

It's the blood and seed that make the difference between humans and all animals.

That's like a problem mechanically caused by gremlins farting phlogiston into the æther.

Then find a quote from PETA that animals are people.

First they claim animal rights, now they're working on making an animal a lawful person. Give it time, then animals will legally be people.

Not a quote from you. I already know that you say all kinds of things.

If you're going to claim that PETA is claiming something, you need to quote PETA claiming it.

In the meantime, the unwillingness to call animals people proves it's ideological, and not consistent with scientific analysis.

Yes, because without your equivocation straw man, you have nothing.

[Difflugia]

Therefore, similar skin doesn't prove anything, except that all natural creatures have it.

What's a biological way to distinguish a natural creature that isn't an animal, from one that is?

You're just stringing together synonyms in a circular mess.

And the blood and seed separation between humans and all animals, proves no human can be an animal, nor an animal species.

What biological quality is that?

It seems that all of your arguments feature invisible qualities that can't be detected or even properly described. I think there's an analogy with Christian apologetics there somewhere, but I can't quite put my aura on it.

[RBD]

Since there is no conflict with anything else taught and recorded in the Bible, then the record of the sun standing still in the sky is simply a matter of belief or unbelief.

There is conflict,

There is plenty of accused conflict, none proven.

This is about Bible inerrancy, not about a person's belief or unbelief.

The Bible does have errors though.

The Bible is accused of errors, none proven.

The star first moved, then stood over where Jesus was. It did not just remain in the same place the whole time, while they travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.

Derp! I take no issue with stars moving around in the sky. It's the claim where it remained stationary that is being questioned.

Like the sun standing still in the sky above Gibeon, so with the star standing above Bethlehem at night. And the Red Sea waters standing apart for the Israelites, not for the Egyptians. And the lame walking, blind seeing, dumb speaking, etc... Unbelief in miracles is not proof of no miracles.

To show any conflict and error in the Bible, then the Bible would need to say somewhere, that such recorded events did not happen, or teach they could not happen...

I learn much from the Bible by the erroneous readings of others.

That is not a good way to go about gaining understanding for things.

You Must Learn from the Mistakes of Others. You Will Never Live Long Enough to Make Them All Yourself. Anonymous

I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work. Thomas Edison

For example, when you learned that we can't have light without stars,

So says the disbeliever:

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

I know what the big bang is, unlike some that argue for it, but are confused about it. They don't understand that it's all about a hypothetical pre-universe of hot gas alone, without shining stars. The big bang is only a made up mechanism to turn it into a universe of shining stars. It's an unproven theory only speculated from the science of the presently expanding universe.

I offer you a gentle pat on the head and see no reason to discuss the details of the Big Bang with you as I already know where your information comes from (the Bible).

I.e. No answer.

Also, the Bible says nothing of a gaseous universe without stars, nor it's explosion.

You can't prove a theory is wrong, where there is no evidence for or against. That includes both the big bang theory, as well as Gen 1's declaration of the universe of expansive stars created all at once.

Let me help you. For the Big Bang specifically:
The Big Bang could be disproven by observations that contradict its core predictions or by a more compelling alternative model.

The Big Bang is without direct evidence to prove it. There is no attempt to disprove it.

A more compelling alternative model is simple: Creation of all the stars of the universe at once. The evidence for it is the present universe of gas and stars, without evidence of any universe of gas without stars.

The only direct evidence is an expanded universe of stars, not of any pre-universe of hot gas alone, without any shining stars.

There is evidence for the Big Bang..

Quote the direct evidence of a universe of gas without stars, exploding.

An expanding universe of gas and stars, is only evidence of an expanding universe of gas and stars.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

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

This returns us to the answer, just in case you missed it:

Breeding divides species of animals. But blood divides humans from all animals. Humans have one blood for all humans, and all animals have one blood for animals.

I've already mentioned that gorilla and chimpanzee [both primates] do not have "one blood", thus it is not necessary for primates [gorillas, chimpanzees, humans] to have "one blood" in order to be primates.

You suggest that I've "missed" your claim when I've addressed it over and over. By repeatedly ignoring my response, you show that you have nothing with which to counter it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #215]

The Bible is accused of errors, none proven.

Then the earth could have developed into a life-bearing planet before the sun existed?

According to what astrophysical evidence?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #169]

Species that cannot interbreed are entirely different species.

Entirely different species can still have a common ancestor.

This is only true for animal species, not for humans that are not an animal species. The argument of humans not being an animal species, is only confirming the determination of species by breeding. Humans can only then be called a 'species' as an empty academic exercise, but cannot be called an animal species.

It's the blood of humans that separates us from all animals on earth. The science is that human blood is not animal blood, nor is animal blood that of humans.

Determining species by breeding, forbids humans being an animal species. Determining animals by blood, forbids humans being animals.

Speciation of animals still has animal blood. Humans cannot 'speciate' from any animal. Only unless, it is ever proven that animal blood can be the same one blood of human beings:

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

For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population, and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed.


This is evolutionary speciation, which therefore must confine itself to animals alone, not humans. No original population of blood and seed, can produce a whole new population of blood and seed. Not by evolution. Gen 1 declares speciation by creation:

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

New creation of life in the waters and in the air, at the same time.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Then the mammals from the earth, not the waters nor the air. (The same as the body of man from the dust of the earth...)

There is nothing here that practical science forbids, but only the ideological evolutionist forbidding creation.

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.

It's not the same logic, because rodents and primates are animal species. Not humans. Only the presumption of humans being animals makes the argument appear logical, when it's only circular.

Remember the last thing the presenter said in the chromosome video? He believes in a designer, but not in a deceptive designer.

So, a committed evolutionist has an evolutionary designer, that is not a Creator. Otherwise, he would not be assuming a new creature is only by evolution, and not by creation.

If the Creator wanted us to believe that we're not primates,

First, you're not speaking of the evolutionist's designer, since he does not believe in creation, but only in evolution.

Second, there is no deception in being similar, unless it's assumed they must have come from the same creature, and not created separate but similar. Similarities are obvious. It's only an assumed false conclusion, that is deceiving.

Finally, there is no 'if' about it: The intelligent Creator does tell us exactly, that we are not primates:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But he tells us how we are created, which the primate-human evolutionist ideologically forbids.

why were we created with a fused chromosome pair which makes us look like we share ancestry with the great apes?

First, a fused chromosome pair means were are not primates. Only the false assumption of evolution for all things, looks for ancestry in something, that proves we have no present family relation. A created new creature of 23 chromosomes, not 24, needs not search for a mythical ancestry that has no evidence.

Primate-human evolution began as a theory bouncing off the science of animal speciation, and now has all the weight of tradition, that is spoken so often over time, that the committed believer must channel evolution into any argument of speciation. Simple creation doesn't even occur to them.

And once again, by speaking of a Creator, you separate yourself from the evolutionist and his non-creating designer. But then, being a committed believer in evolution alone, you can't even apply 'creation' to the argument of a Creator.

No one can speak of a Creator in any way, unless they are going to argue for creation. Without creation, there is no Creator.

[RBD]

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.

My religious beliefs have gotten in your way, when you try to tell me how my religious beliefs should work.

One day you will be dead and we will have educated the next generation though.

Your generations have come and gone: Marxist and sex revolutions, where humans act like the animals they say they are, and worse.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

This is a debate site and you sully it with such meaningless statements.

Stop telling people how to be religious, and you'll stop hearing about their religion.

[RBD]

[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.

No problem. The present universe of stars and gas forming new stars, is sufficient evidence of the universe of stars beginning with gas to form new stars. There is no evidence that the universe of stars, was ever without gas for new stars.

And there is no evidence that there ever was a universe of gas, without stars already formed.

The former has direct evidence, without contradiction, and the latter has no evidence at all.

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.

Creation is not the subject here, but only the nature of all flesh on earth, which is but dust. Both Gen 1 and 2 are scientifically accurate, with all living creatures on earth being but dust.

Therefore, the nature of skin cannot be used to make humans into animals, nor animals into birds, not birds into fish, which all are physically dust to dust. (Except the 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.

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.

The unscientific argument was against cloning, in order to reject the first Book on cloning. It's not faith-based, but literary research. Your faith issues are irrelevant to the argument.

Having to take Gen 2 on faith alone, was before the sciences of common flesh biology and stem-cell cloning. And of course, the best source of stem cells? Bone marrow...

"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.

Which is why he wasn't a 'humans are animals' nor Catholic ideologue. The former are ignorant of and corrupt science, and the latter the Bible.