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...)

[RBD]

[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"

True. The man, not the animal.

Psa 32:9
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding:

If you're going to Bible, then go by the Bible.

[RBD]

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?

Google it already. If you're not going to accept something so easily verified, then I'm not taking the time to do it for you.

The blood separates the life of creatures, and the seed separates the kind of creature. Human blood and life is not animal, and humans are not an animal species. If you have any evidence or argument to counter the obvious, I'll be glad to listen.

I have learned over time, that it's often what's not said, that reveals the veracity and motives for what is said. No primate-human evolutionist that I know of, has ever addressed the complete separation between humans and animals by blood and seed.

All you people have is the usual scientific similarities about how reeeeeally close we are in DNA, Chromosomes, skeletal shape, physical appearance, etc... So close and yet so far away from any real match, that makes a human an animal, and vica versa.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #270]

If a whole new species is evolved from another, such as bird to reptile, then there would have to be past breeding between with the former, and only present breeding with the latter. If the creature were a bird, that never breed with reptiles, then it's not a new reptile, but only a bird. There was no new speciation, but only the same old species evolving with new characteristics.

As the reptilian ancestors of creatures such as Archaeopteryx evolved, they began to develop features which we recognize in modern birds. As the breeding went on, those avian features became more prominant as they were perpetuated in the offspring of the organisms which had those features. As their bodies became more avian, they separated from the breeding of their previous reptilian lineage. Result----birds.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This states that all new speciation is by creation, not by evolution. Evolution must prove, that a separate kind of species ever had common breeding ancestry with another. I.e. One kind of species, the bird, evolved into another whole class of species, the reptile.

Here you're claiming that scientific evidence has to "prove" itself but that a dogmatic statement of faith doesn't. That's backwards.

For the Archeopteryx to have evolved from bird to reptile

Here again you have it backwards. Archaeopteryx was evolving from reptile to bird.

We're talking about new speciation, not simple speciation.

We're talking about both. One is about the overall process, the other about specific mechanisms. The process and the mechanisms are related, because the mechanisms drive the process.

They are all new creaturesappearing on earth, that have no present interbreeding. If they evolved from one to the other, then common ancestry of breeding must be proven between one and the other.

Species don't have to be able to interbreed to have come from a common ancestor.

But that is not new speciation, where there is a whole new and separate class of species. That is never proven to by by evolution.

Are you trying to make the old "ain't never been no fish give birth to a monkey" argument?

New speciation evolution, especially from apes to man, appeals to the scientifically unproven process of ideology.

I believe I've made such comment before, but there's more scientific evidence of humans being primates than there is of a planet with vegetation existing without a star for it to orbit.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #269]

Ever since creation of the universe of stars, there has always been shining stars therein. Including gas and dirt to form new stars, adding to the ones first created in a moment and a twinkling of the eye..

You state this as fact, presenting no testable evidence of that being the way it happened.

The testable evidence suggests that all the stars were formed from gas which was drawn together by gravity into galaxies. Since Genesis mentions only stars and not galaxies or galactic clusters, the Genesis story has insufficient explanatory power.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #271]

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

True. The man, not the animal.

Was the man an animal before he came to know good and evil?

[RBD]

None of the great ape species can interbreed, so an inability to interbreed doesn't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

Intraspecies evolution results in a class of species separating into non-breeding groups of the same species. Apes have common ancestry in the primate species, but not presently with other types of primates.

Humans are completely separate from any animal species on earth, by virtue of no interbreeding. The question of evolution can only by proven by past common ancestry, as it is with apes, monkeys, orangutangs, etc...There is no proof of common ancestry between humans and any animal on earth.

Great ape blood groups are not universal among great apes, so differing blood groups don't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

There are types of animal blood, and types of human blood, but no animal blood is human, nor any human blood is animal. Xenotransfusion between humans and animals, like that of primate-human evolution, is only theoretical not proven, and therefore practical fact.

There's nothing practical about the ideology of humans are animals. In life's blood and seed, humans are not animals, nor are animals human.

Anyone saying humans are animals for any reason, but animals are not humans, are only arguing an inconsistent ideology, that must turn to personal interpretation, rather than consistent analysis.

[Difflugia]

You're the one that said the difference is biological, so what biological feature does one have that the other doesn't?

Google it already.

Google isn't the one saying that human blood and semen aren't animal blood and semen. You're saying that. You're wrong, but you're saying it.

If you're not going to accept something so easily verified, then I'm not taking the time to do it for you.

If it were so easily verified, I'm confident you would have told us how to do so. Instead, you're "taking the time" to repeat the same nonsense over and over without presenting any evidence or justification.

Human blood and life is not animal, and humans are not an animal species.

And how would one tell the difference between animal and non-animal blood?

If you have any evidence or argument to counter the obvious,

I posted that already.

I'll be glad to listen.

You didn't listen then, so I'm not holding my breath now.

I have learned over time, that it's often what's not said, that reveals the veracity and motives for what is said. No primate-human evolutionist that I know of, has ever addressed the complete separation between humans and animals by blood and seed.

You haven't given us anything to address other than your repeated assertion. You might as well just be telling us that King Charles is a lizard alien or that there are Nazis living in the hollow Earth. You keep shouting that it's obvious, but it only seems to be obvious to you.

All you people have is the usual scientific similarities about how reeeeeally close we are in DNA, Chromosomes, skeletal shape, physical appearance, etc...

Yes. All we have are the scientific data. That's all.

So close and yet so far away from any real match, that makes a human an animal, and vica versa.

Yeah? So, once again, what is it other than genetic similarity, physical similarity, biochemical similarity, or cell structure similarity that differentiates humans or human blood or human semen from animals or animal blood or animal semen? I know that it's obvious, but just pretend that I don't know how to squint in the same way you do and tell me.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #276]

None of the great ape species can interbreed, so an inability to interbreed doesn't keep a great ape----including a human----from being a primate.

Intraspecies evolution results in a class of species separating into non-breeding groups of the same species. Apes have common ancestry in the primate species, but not presently with other types of primates.

Humans are completely separate from any animal species on earth, by virtue of no interbreeding.

But you just confirmed that other primate species don't interbreed, which means that not interbreeding isn't what separates humans from other primate species.

The question of evolution can only by proven by past common ancestry, as it is with apes, monkeys, orangutangs, etc...There is no proof of common ancestry between humans and any animal on earth.

There's no argument here. You're simply denying the point I've made.

There are types of animal blood, and types of human blood, but no animal blood is human, nor any human blood is animal. Xenotransfusion between humans and animals, like that of primate-human evolution, is only theoretical not proven, and therefore practical fact.

Again, you're simply ignoring the point I've made about differences in blood not being a factor in a primate being a primate.

There's nothing practical about the ideology of humans are animals. In life's blood and seed, humans are not animals, nor are animals human.

More repetition.

Anyone saying humans are animals for any reason, but animals are not humans, are only arguing an inconsistent ideology, that must turn to personal interpretation, rather than consistent analysis.

Anyone saying that humans don't have animal bodies is arguing an "inconsistent ideology".

You still indicate very strongly that the idea of humankind having any relation to the animal world really bothers you. If you could make your peace with that, personal spiritual growth would be a lot easier.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #246]

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...

The Bible does contradict science if it says that vegetation existed before there were stars. Vegetation on a planet not orbiting a star has never been scientifically observed.

You need to learn the difference between a scientific argument disproving something, vs an argument against something, that's only not proven by science.

So long as no science disproves vegetation by a light other than stars, then it's only unbelief arguing against it.

The Bible reveals the light of the Creator gave life to vegetation, before creating sunlight. Since no science disproves it, then neither does any unbelief.

The challenge is to disprove the Bible, not to just disbelieve it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #279]

You need to learn the difference between a scientific argument disproving something, vs an argument against something, that's only not proven by science.

You need to learn the difference between believing something because it has scientific evidence supporting it, vs believing something because the religious book of your choice says it.

So long as no science disproves vegetation by a light other than stars, then it's only unbelief arguing against it.

Then so long as no science disproves the Chinese goddess Nu Kua creating the first humans out of clay, it's only unbelief arguing against it.

The Bible reveals the light of the Creator gave life to vegetation, before creating sunlight. Since no science disproves it, then neither does any unbelief.

Ancient Egyptian cosmology reveals that creation arose from the primordial waters. Since no science disproves it, then neither does any unbelief.

The challenge is to disprove the Bible, not to just disbelieve it.

The challenge is to disprove the Book of Mormon....
Upanishads....
Tao Te Ching....
Guru Granth Sahib....
Vedas....
Shinto Kojiki.....
.....not to just disbelieve it.