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]

There is no evidence of any entirely new species on earth, that no longer has any breeding relations with an old species, that supposedly produced it.

Yes there is. It's actually quite common in taxa that are prone to speciation via polyploidy, such as...

https://courses.botany.wisc.edu/botany_ ... al2004.pdf

Simply put, the newly evolved species are unable to reproduce with either of the parent species due to chromosome number differences.

To clarify: No new class of species on earth; Fish, amphibian, bird, reptile, mammal...mankind, has any breeding relations with an older different class, that supposedly produced the new class.

Simply put, the newly evolved species within a class of species, is not a wholly new class of species, but only a new member of the same old species. There are evolved members of primates, that all have primate heritage, but do not reproduce with other evolved primate members: Apes, gorillas, moneys, orangutangs, etc... But there are no newly evolved primates, that have any heritage from a another class: New mammals evolve from the mammal class of species, not from fish, reptile, bird, amphibians... No monkey evolved from a fish, nor any man from and ape.

Evolution speciation within a class of species, is not debatable. Evolutionary new speciation of a new class of species, is not proven, where the reptile class of species, has any past ancestry with the fish, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc...classes of species.

New class speciation is either by creation, or by evolution. Sciences has not yet proven either, nor disproven the other.

Scientific proof of speciation within a certain class, is well documented, and continues to be recent, as with the Polyploid. But that's not the argument for the unproven theory of new speciation between classes of species.

Gen 1 origin of species by creation says, that each new class of animal species was created at once, and separate from the others. Each class of animal is created independently of the others.

Origin of species by evolution says, that all classes of animals evolved over time from one original class, such as the fish.

[Jose Fly]

To clarify: No new class of species on earth; Fish, amphibian, bird, reptile, mammal...mankind, has any breeding relations with an older different class, that supposedly produced the new class.

Simply put, the newly evolved species within a class of species, is not a wholly new class of species, but only a new member of the same old species. There are evolved members of primates, that all have primate heritage, but do not reproduce with other evolved primate members: Apes, gorillas, moneys, orangutangs, etc... But there are no newly evolved primates, that have any heritage from a another class: New mammals evolve from the mammal class of species, not from fish, reptile, bird, amphibians... No monkey evolved from a fish, nor any man from and ape.

Evolution speciation within a class of species, is not debatable. Evolutionary new speciation of a new class of species, is not proven, where the reptile class of species, has any past ancestry with the fish, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc...classes of species.

New class speciation is either by creation, or by evolution. Sciences has not yet proven either, nor disproven the other.

Scientific proof of speciation within a certain class, is well documented, and continues to be recent, as with the Polyploid. But that's not the argument for the unproven theory of new speciation between classes of species.

Gen 1 origin of species by creation says, that each new class of animal species was created at once, and separate from the others. Each class of animal is created independently of the others.

Origin of species by evolution says, that all classes of animals evolved over time from one original class, such as the fish.

None of that makes any sense at all. You're using taxonomic terms (species, class) but not at all properly or in any way that corresponds to how they're used in taxonomy. You hopefully remember this from high school....



See how the way you're using "class" doesn't match up? For example, "primates" are an Order, within the Class Mammalia. "Fish" on the other hand are made up of two Superclasses (Agnatha and Osteichthyes) and one Class (Condrichthyes) and so on.

So from a science perspective, you're all over the map, misusing basic terms, and not making a lick of sense.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #290]

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.

Gorilla blood is no other animal blood and no other animal blood is gorilla blood. If that degree of blood difference doesn't keep gorillas from being primates, then it doesn't keep humans from being primates.

[RBD]

So long as the positive 'forensic' match remains unfound between past humans and animals, then animal-human evolution only remains a speculation, not a fact.

Well then, consider the issue settled...

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don't have genes for viral coat proteins and can't cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via "copy-n-paste" (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via "cut-n-paste" (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host's genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations.

And so, we have common ancestry with yeast, bacteria, and flies. All this proves is what is already known: All natural flesh and living matter on earth is made of the same substance: Dust. The commonality of all natural mortal life forms, is not a common ancestry between different classes of species, not man with beasts of the field.

There is no proven match specific to humans and any other animal on earth.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.
About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3003370/

When that which is specific to humans, whether blood, seed, or 2000 'Alus', are ever specific to any animal, then we have a match. Once again, 'related' and 'sharing' in part does not make all parts the same.

No one is denying the shared similarities between humans and all animals on earth, so far as having natural mortal bodies and biological systems. But, so long as there is no match between any human and animal, then no human is an animal. It's observable sense, as well as scientific comparison studies, that humans are not animals today. That is not a question.

The only question for evolution of one class of animal having common ancestry with another class, as well as humans with primates, is some time in the past, where there was a match between them. Rather than some commonality of all life forms on earth, where is the specific ancestral match from which sprang fishes and birds, reptiles and mammals, or humans and primates along different evolutionary paths. Otherwise, all we ever have is an abundance of similarities study between two separate paths that never intersect.

Origin of species by evolution is never proven for any supposed separation of a whole class of species from another presently separated class. Origin of species by creation of each class independently, also not proven scientifically, still remains sensible.

So again, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. I suppose one can argue that this bit of evidence "proves" human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence "proves" paternity in courts of law.

Of course, the problem with the whole argument, is that no such paternity test will show in court a primate parent of a human person, nor vica versa.

Neither in the genealogical human tree. Nor yet, in any supposed parentage from past days out of mind, before the human genealogical tree even begins...

The whole search for past skeletal matches has continued to fail. The same for genetic, biological, DNA, 'Alus', etc...Simply give the parental match from which humans sprang from any animal.

Continued similarities today only conclude continued similarities that don't match. In that regard, all naturally living organisms and physical creatures on earth have the common similarity of dust and mortality.

Darwin's dilemma of no evidence, where evidence ought be to prove origin of species by evolution, is simple: There's no there, there. Creation remains the simplest and most sensible means of new creatures appearing on earth, that have no present nor past match.

All of the scientific efforts to resolve the dilemma with direct evidence, whether in skeletal remains or biological comparisons, have only continued to result in similarities of paths, but not match to diverge from. Evolution exists within a species once formed, but not for origin of species.

[POI]

Please answer post 232.

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.

For your specific argument to make sense, then all "animal" blood would be interchangeable with all any other species of animals, but it's not.

Speciation does not identify why human blood is not animal blood, nor why blood has different types.

Speciation makes no attempts to explain this specific argument. However, a) speciation and b) common ancestry are two of the cornerstones as to why evolutionary biology is demonstrated.

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...

I've already touched on this in post 268, and prior. When you ignore, and/or produce your own strawman argument(s), it is easier for you to deny the evidence.

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.

For your argument to be sound, in any capacity at all, severe or fatal reaction(s) would need to happen 100% of the time. Your argument has completely failed. In 1667, both Jean-Baptiste Denis in France and Richard Lower in England separately reported successful transfusions from lambs to humans. Within 10 years, transfusing the blood of animals to humans became prohibited by law because of reactions. Reactions happen within the same species as well as between differing species. Each species evolved accordingly to carry strengths and weaknesses against particular pathogens.

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.

Here is where we are so far. I've given evidence to demonstrate that homo sapiens have a fused chromosome, which is why homo sapiens have 23 and not 24 chromosomes. We also know that successful transfusion(s) between humans and other species can happen. Alternatively, you have a claim from a book, and that's basically all. And this is before we even touch on all the other evidence(s) to demonstrate both 1) speciation - (in which you continue to issue a strawman argument for), and 2) common ancestry.

Anyone can believe in a) origin of species by evolution, the same as anyone can believe in b) origin of species by creation.

And here is where the rubber meets the road. You are essentially arguing that either position, in either a) or b), are both 'faith-based' position(s). This is the theist's way to try and level the playing field.

But no one can believe in both at the same time.

This statement is patently false, unless you are accusing Dr. Kenneth Miller, and many many many other believers, of being a liar.

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.

I already touched on this in post 268. You are merely inventing you own personal brand to dismantle.

[RBD]

You can try to force an answer based upon humans are animals, but not with someone who knows humans are not animals.

The fact of the matter is that I now have you backed into an intellectual corner. I asked if such acts of applying (a) empathy, b) fairness, and d) justice) are deemed moral? You agreed these three actions are moral actions and not instead merely instinctual actions.

False. With humans they are instinctual and moral. With animals they are instinctual only.

A human can morally judge and act contrary to instinct. Not animals.

No animal will override self-survival instinct to run into a flaming building to rescue another creature. Unless trained to do so, And then once trained, the animal will do so by instinct and not fail to rush in. He must be held back by the handler. Only humans have the moral capacity to independently choose one way or the other, and at any given time. Animals do not have thst free will power, which Gen 1 says is only by creation in the image of God.

And of course, until someone saying animals can act morally, will also say they can act immorally, then they are only preaching their personal ideology, not any objective behavioral science.

Nowhere do I say that God is proven true by Gen 1, especially not that anyone else must believe it.

Yes, you do.

(here) 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.

(here) In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another

(here) God creating men and women in His own image

(here) 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

(here) 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
[/quote]
Gen 1 of the Book is being argued, which therefore must include the God and Creator of Gen 1. The argument of evidence for Gen 1 being believed as true, de facto includes the God and Creator recorded as doing the work.

As yet, I am not aware of any science proving it must be true, so that any intelligent person must believe the God and Creator of Gen 1.

If anyone listening to arguments of evidence for Gen 1, feels 'proselytized' by arguing the things of Gen 1, they need to stay away from argument for Gen 1.

The argument is about the direct evidence for Gen 1 creation by the God and Creator of Gen 1: The present expansive universe of stars, and the separation between humans and all animals, speaks of being created that way, not evolutionized.

my only focus is on the arguments evidence for Gen 1, vs that of the Big Bang and primate-human evolution.

Seems your focus is to flat out reject the evidence which demonstrates common ancestry and speciation. [/quote]

I continue to reject the arguments of similarities, that never match. Only ideologues claim a match, where there is no scientific match. Ideologues are notorious for relying on approximations, not factual proofs.

Humans are animals is ideology, not science. Humans are similar to animals, is science.

It's not possible to argue the evidence of Gen 1, without mentioning the God of Gen 1. If someone 'feels' proselytized by mentioning God, then they are touchier than many atheists, who mention God many times in many ways...

I don't feel 'proselytized'. But you are trying to use Genesis 1 as evidence for God.
[/quote]

Evidence for Gen 1 must be evidence for the God of Gen 1.

And of course, until someone saying animals can act morally, will also say animals can act immorally, then they are only preaching their personal ideology, not any objective behavioral science.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #266]

The same goes for the present expansive universe of stars, as evidence of being created that way. Where there is no direct evidence of a pre-universe of hot gas without stars, that 'explodes' to form stars over time.

There is no direct evidence----or even indirect evidence----that there was planetary vegetation before there were stars.

Then don't believe it. So long as there is no evidence against vegetation by a light not of stars, then I'll continue to believe it.

Try to learn the difference between disbelieving something, vs disproving something. The factual argument doesn't care whether you disbelieve, or I believe.

Creation of whole new class of species in one day, cannot sanely be argued as new speciation evolution over thousands or millions of years.

Creation of whole new classes of species in one day cannot be argued, period (there's no evidence of a whole new species being created in one day).

Nor direct evidence against it. Especially not evolutionary.

Try to learn the difference between disbelieving something, vs disproving something. The factual argument doesn't care whether you disbelieve, or I believe.

Man cannot be created in the image of God on day 6, and also be evolutionized from apes on any day.

How about splitting the difference and concluding that man evolved into an image of God?

In one day? That certainly is a hair-split. But not from any ape at all. Gen 1 does say God created man and woman by ape in His image. Human beings don't ape His image.

However, creating man, and then from a deep sleep creating woman, could certainly take much of the 6th day.

[RBD]

What's not proven to be evolutionary is new speciation: Where a whole new class of species is formed from an older class, with no cross breeding nor ancestry. Such as fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, etc... and humans. The whole theory of new species evolution is never proven.

Here is where your provided strawman shines, and then continues below. There is no 'new speciation'. It's just 'speciation'.

So, you're not just a layman failing to make difference between the two, but an ideologue refusing to see the difference. Speciation is separation of members within the same species. New speciation is a new class of species separate from the others.

Speciation is for ape, gorilla, orangutang, monkey, etc...evolutionizing as different primate species. New speciation is for fish, amphibians, fowl, reptiles, mammals, man, appearing as separate class of species...

Speciation evolution is proven fact. New speciation is origin of species by creation or evolution, neither of which are yet scientifically proven.

[POI]

False. With humans they are instinctual and moral. With animals they are instinctual only.

A human can morally judge and act contrary to instinct. Not animals.

Now you are just moving the goalposts and/or introducing special pleading. I asked you, long ago, if a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice were (instinctual or moral) actions. You stated c) is an instinctual action, but the others are moral actions. So I've since excluded c) from the conversation. Now you are pivoting.

No animal will override self-survival instinct

Both animals and insects do this all the time. Just do a basic lookup for "what animals and insects ever perform acts of altruism?"

Animals do not have thst free will power, which Gen 1 says is only by creation in the image of God.

Restating an apparent claim from a dusty 'ol book means nothing.

And of course, until someone saying animals can act morally, will also say they can act immorally, then they are only preaching their personal ideology, not any objective behavioral science.

You stepped in it, not me. According to your own logic, other species can be moral or immoral, just like homo sapiens.

Nowhere do I say that God is proven true by Gen 1, especially not that anyone else must believe it.

Gen 1 of the Book is being argued, which therefore must include the God and Creator of Gen 1. The argument of evidence for Gen 1 being believed as true, de facto includes the God and Creator recorded as doing the work.

In your case, you cannot place the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse.

If anyone listening to arguments of evidence for Gen 1, feels 'proselytized' by arguing the things of Gen 1, they need to stay away from argument for Gen 1.

** As already stated, I do not feel 'proselytized'. I've instead demonstrated, in many places within your OP, how you are trying to prove "God" by pointing to Genesis 1. **

The argument is about the direct evidence for Gen 1 creation by the God and Creator of Gen 1

Bingo! See my response directly above.

I continue to reject the arguments of similarities, that never match. Only ideologues claim a match, where there is no scientific match. Ideologues are notorious for relying on approximations, not factual proofs.

Well, when you have created your own special version, then it is easier for you to reject it.

Humans are animals is ideology, not science. Humans are similar to animals, is science.

Here is just another throw-away claim, being the term ideology needs context. Further, until you correctly represent what biology defines as speciation, you will continue to misrepresent the interlocutor's position.

Evidence for Gen 1 must be evidence for the God of Gen 1.

Thank you again for conforming what I have been saying for a while now. See my response above in (**)

[POI]

New speciation is origin of species by creation or evolution, neither of which are yet scientifically proven.

Again, there is no 'new speciation'. Please pick one:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/modes-of-speciation/

1) Allopatric (allo = other, patric = place): New species formed from geographically isolated populations.

2) Peripatric (peri = near, patric = place): New species formed from a small population isolated at the edge of a larger population.

3) Parapatric (para = beside, patric = place): New species formed from a continuously distributed population.

4) Sympatric (sym = same, patric = place): New species formed from within the range of the ancestral population.