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 #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.

I thought it was spot on. In any case, since there's nothing new here, then there's no need rehashing old stuff. Thanks.

[RBD]

Then how do you account for the man without abiogenesis, which has never been scientifically observed [meaning that there's no proof of it]?

It's called a claim that is not scientifically proven, yet not scientifically disproven. Disbelief without scientific confirmation, does not make the claim false. The argument remains about believability in the absence of factual disproof.

However, since science does prove that all flesh is made of the same substance as dust, then the claim has scientific credibility: A man can be shaped from the dust of the earth, by a Physician that can also clone a woman from the man's rib-bone.

[Athetotheist]

[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.

I thought it was spot on. In any case, since there's nothing new here, then there's no need rehashing old stuff. Thanks.

You're right----there's nothing new here. Vegetation on a planet not orbiting a star has still never been scientifically observed.

[Athetotheist]

Then how do you account for the man without abiogenesis, which has never been scientifically observed [meaning that there's no proof of it]?

It's called a claim that is not scientifically proven, yet not scientifically disproven. Disbelief without scientific confirmation, does not make the claim false. The argument remains about believability in the absence of factual disproof.

However, since science does prove that all flesh is made of the same substance as dust, then the claim has scientific credibility: A man can be shaped from the dust of the earth, by a Physician that can also clone a woman from the man's rib-bone.

Dust = earth

Earth = clay

Praise the goddess Nu Kua, Creatress of the first humans!

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

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.

Are you presuming to dictate to the Creator how nature is to be ordered?

To clarify: At the time of creation, there can be no evolution going before. When fish were created, there was no previous creature, that the fish evolved from. The same for all classes of species created after the fish, such as amphibian reptile, bird, and mammal. This is especially true for man and woman being created apart from all animals.

And so, anyone believing in man being created at one time after all the animals, cannot also believe in man evolving from any animal going before.

Creation of a new creature at one time, does not allow for any previous evolution to become that new creation.

Origin of species creation says, that all new classes of creatures were created at once, apart from one another. Origin of species evolution says all classes of species evolved from the separate class going before...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

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.

Are you presuming to dictate to the Creator how nature is to be ordered?

Are you now believing in the Creator? And now presuming to dictate to believers about Him?

In any case, the order in which the Creator creates His new creatures apart from one another, has nothing to do with any supposed order of evolution from one old creature to a new one.

A new creature created at once apart from all other creatures, rules out any evolution of one creature now separated from another.

What makes you so wise that everyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong?

It's not so much wisdom, but disciplined arguments. I have to spend some time correcting misrepresentations of my arguments by others. It's not so much that their wrong in their own arguments, but only wrong about what I'm arguing.

This is especially true when debating proven single species evolution vs unproven new species evolution. Others keep arguing for the former, when I'm only arguing against the latter.

Evolution within a class of species is not debatable. It's the evolution of a whole new class of species from one going before, that is only theoretical conjecture.

As with men and women being created after all the animals, Gen 1 states that each class of animal species itself, fish, amphibian, reptile, fowl, mammal... is created after it's own kind, not evolved from an old class to a new one.

The whole effort to prove origin of species by evolution, is failed to produce the proof of direct evidence. It remains only relatively modern day theory, that does not disprove the origin of species by creation.

Evolutionary theory suggests all class of species evolved from one first class of species. Creation states that all classes of species were each created one at a time , not evolving from one first species, such as fish.

Gen 1:21 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 made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:.. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

[RBD]

We can only receive life by human blood transfusion, and animals only by animal blood.

What you are loosely referring to is called a (xenotransfusion). Such attempts in transfusions fail for many reasons. But of course, they would fail,

The first and foremost reason for failure, being that no human blood is animal, and vica versa. Humans are not animals to transfuse life's blood with. Nor are we an animal species to breed with.

which is why (speciation) is very much an identified thing in the study of evolutionary biology.

[/quote]

Speciation does not identify why human blood is not animal blood, nor why blood has different types. That's simple biology.

It's evolutionary speciation that identifies changes within a single class of species, such as primates, so that some primates do not breed with others of their own species. And that's not debatable.

The argument is against new speciation by evolution, instead of by creation. There is no evolutionary biology, that proves one class of species evolved from another previous class, such as reptile from fish, or mammal from bird, or man from ape...

But your argument lends virtually nothing to the topic of (common ancestry).

It certainly does. It adds the demand to skeletal remains, that evolutionists must also show any past sharing of human and animal blood, to prove common ancestry.

And we already went over a key piece of evidence with Chromosome #2 in humans.

Yes, that 23 chromosomes does not equal 24, and so does not match humans with primates.

The theory of new speciation evolution, does not disprove humans are created with 23 chromosomes, 1 fused, while primates are all created separately with 24 chromosomes, none fused.

Origin of species by evolution has no matching proof in the past nor present. Origin of species by creation is not disproven.

Despite having differences, humans share a common ancestry with other animals due to several factors, such as shared genes, homologous structures, and similar developmental patterns. DNA evidence, particularly the presence of shared endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), provides strong evidence for common ancestry. Additionally, fossil records and embryological similarities further support the evolutionary relationships between humans and other animals.

And all are strong sciences of similarities alone, not any strong scientific match of humans being primates in the past nor present. They can all suggest a match, but do not prove one. Anyone can still believe a match can be found, but no one can say a match has been proven.

Anyone can believe in origin of species by evolution, the same as anyone can believe in origin of species by creation. But no one can believe in both at the same time. Nor can anyone declare that science as proven one and disproven the other.

And anyone talking about biological speciation, within a class of species, is not talking about biological new speciation, with whole new classes of species. Biological speciation is proven to be evolutionary. But whole new biological speciation is still either by creation, or by evolution.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #285]

To clarify: At the time of creation, there can be no evolution going before. When fish were created, there was no previous creature, that the fish evolved from. The same for all classes of species created after the fish, such as amphibian reptile, bird, and mammal. This is especially true for man and woman being created apart from all animals.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #286]

Are you now believing in the Creator?

What do you mean, "now"? When did I indicate that I didn't?

Read my signature.

And now presuming to dictate to believers about Him?

Are you presuming to dictate to everyone what kind of Creator they can believe in?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #259]

But no human blood is animal blood, nor vica versa.

No gorilla blood is chimpanzee blood or vice versa. Gorilla and chimpanzee are both primates. So are we, differences in blood notwithstanding.

Nor gorilla type animal blood is chimpanzee type animal blood. No human type A blood is human type O blood.
But no type of human blood is type of animal blood.

And so the differences in human type blood and animal type blood notwithstanding, no human and animal blood are the same in any type.