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 #235]

What evidence is there of life-bearing planets existing before the stars they orbit?

You mean other than the earth? I didn't know any other life-bearing planets were found.

If no others have been found, then there's certainly no evidence of life-bearing planets existing before their stars.

Also, the Bible says the light of the Creator was within the universe on day 1.

Then how do you know that the light of the Creator wasn't the flash of the Big Bang?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #236]

Then we have evidence that the Archaeopteryx did not interbreed with reptiles or birds?

We don't have to have evidence that it didn't. We would have to have evidence that it did, and as far as I know we have none.

There is no evidence of new speciation by evolution.

https://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

However, there is still the age-old theory of creation.

Creation appeals to a non-scientific process [a process which cannot be scientifically measured], thus it doesn't qualify as a theory.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #237]

Were they animals before their eyes were opened and they knew good and evil (Genesis 3:22)?

They knew the law of good and evil commanded them.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

[RBD]

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?

Blood separates all humans from all animals. Seed separates all humans from any species of animal.

Animals can have cross-breeding hybrid species, but there is no crossing between humans and animals.

What biological quality is that?

Blood is the life of the creature. Other scientific similarities of flesh and bone between humans and animals are only superficial, as well was never matching.

The blood tells the tale: Where no common blood is between two creatures, there is no common life shared.

[RBD]

[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.

And one more time, animals have different types of the blood, the same as humans, but animal blood is not human, nor human blood is animal.

Animals can also transfuse life-giving blood between themselves, as well as humans, but no animal blood and give life to any human, nor human to any animal.

The blood and life of all humans is not animal, nor vica versa. Humans are not animals with shared blood nor life.

Nor can humans breed with any animal, and so humans are not any animal species.

[RBD]

[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?

You have the Bible answer. If all you accept is scientific proof, then don't believe the Bible.

The Bible does not contradict science, by saying that earth bore life without any light at all...

[Difflugia]

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

Blood separates all humans from all animals. Seed separates all humans from any species of animal.

That doesn't answer the question. If I have some blood, how do I tell if it's animal blood or not? You're the one that said the difference is biological, so what biological feature does one have that the other doesn't?

[RBD]

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.

Why not, when humans breed the same way other species do?

Species is determined by breeding. Humans do not breed with any animal. Humans are not a species of animal.

We have 23 chromosome pairs because two of our chromosomes fused. Otherwise, we would have 24 like the Great Apes.

Otherwise, we would be apes, not humans. We don't, so we aren't.

All similarity arguments never match. They are also superficial in flesh and bone, while humans and animals are separated by life's blood.

If we had 23 chromosome pairs with no fusions, that would indicate that there was no common ancestor. The chromosome #2 fusion is there, so the evidence of a common ancestor is there.

False. That is an evolutionary presumption of common ancestry with 24, which has no proof. There is no direct evidence of a primate with 24 fusing into a man with 23. Ape can be created with 24, and man created with one fused for 23.

New speciation of a wholly separate creature on earth, is by creation or evolution. New species creation is not proven, but is believable. And new species evolution is not proven, and so also requires faith.

Saying that a fused fused chromosome must be by ancestral evolution, is only by ideological belief, not proven science. And without scientific proof, saying that the man can be created with a fused chromosome is belief.

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.

You're proposing the false dilemma of believing in a Creator OR believing in evolutionary creation, which is fallacious.

False. One rules out the other. Creation by definition is not evolutionary, nor is evolution defined by creation.

So long as there remains no evolutionary proof of any new speciation, then creation explains the whole new creature on earth, that has no proven ancestry.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #220]

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.

1. An early, expanding universe of gas and dust collected by gravity into galaxies comprised of the first stars

2. A planet existing and bringing forth vegetation before there were any stars (Genesis 1:12)

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

True. The former has present evidence, without evidence of any other kind of universe. The latter only has faith in the God that is Light.

My faith issues? You're the one quoting Genesis in lieu of presenting scientific evidence.

The Genesis record of a cloning, is of a scientifically proven procedure. Only a personal aversion to believing any of Genies would say the record of cloning has no science.

If you believe that the first man was made of dust, then you should familiarize yourself with the difference between cloning and abiogenesis.

No one is saying man was cloned, but only the woman from the man.

Woman was completely cloned from man's stem cell rib marrow. Man was at once abiogenetically made from the dust.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #223]

None of the blood of man is any blood of animals, and vica versa. Man is not beast, and vica versa. None of the seed of man is any seed of an animal. Man is not an animal species.

The science of similarities does not produce a match at any time between any human and animal.

Gorillas don't match chimpanzees enough to be chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees don't match orangutans enough to be orangutans.

Orangutans don't match humans enough to be humans.

Correct. Humans don't match enough to be orangutans, chimps, Gorillas, nor any other primate.

We all match enough to be primates.

False. Humans don't match enough to be any primate.

And humans don't have any animal blood to be an animal. Nor do humans interbreed to be any animal species.

Calling humans primates and a species is ideologically-speaking alone.