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?