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.

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

There's also nothing new when people omit parts of an argument. I guess they think it helps them 'win'.

1Co 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #311]

There's also nothing new when people omit parts of an argument. I guess they think it helps them 'win'.

1Co 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Reciting scripture in place of citing evidence isn't arguing.

[RBD]

[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.

"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

Ok, I meant the Bible Creator, not a pagan god. With the Bible, referring to a god is as referring to no god at all.
Exo 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Jer 16:20
Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?

Gal 4:8
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

A universal evolutionist preaching a Creator, is self-contradictory. Creation is at once, where nothing was before.

No one can believe in Gen 1 creation of the universe of stars, and also the Big Bang evolution from a pre-universe without stars.

No one can believe in Gen 1 creation of man in God's image, and also the evolution of man from apes over time.

And now presuming to dictate to believers about Him?

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

The Bible dictates the one kind of Creator. Men dictate their own kind of gods.

Gen 3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Difflugia]

Or, request animal blood for transfusion, and breed with an animal.

If that's your test, what's your diagnostic animal? Like, if a creature can't receive a transfusion from [creature] or can't interbreed with [creature], then it isn't an animal. Would a raccoon work? How about a bumblebee?

Can a lemur interbreed with an anteater? If not, which one isn't an animal?

[RBD]

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....

You need to learn the difference between taxonomic rankings of animals, and taxonomic classes of animals: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, and Invertebrates.

I refer to classes for simplicity when debating proven intraspecies evolution within a class, vs unproven new species evolution between classes.

While there are skeletal and biological similarities between animal classes, there is no proven evolution from one to the other. Any reasonable laymen and accept the former, but only pseudo-scientific ideologues declare the latter is proven beyond doubt.

In any case, the case for proving forensic common ancestry, is a failure. It's only another example of similarities, that never prove to be a positive match. And no parent nor genealogical ancestor is found the human family tree.

No one will ever go to court with a forensic match of a parental primate of a human babe. Nor will any genealogical search produce a great ape in a person's ancestral line...

[RBD]

[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.

False association. Human blood type A is still human blood. Gorilla blood is still animal blood.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.

All humans have one blood, no matter the type, and all animals have one blood, no matter the type.

[RBD]

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.

False. No more than all human blood would be interchangeable.

Many humans can interchange blood with other humans, as well as animals with other animals. But no human blood is interchangeable with animal blood, and vica versa.

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.

You can continue argue for proven speciation within the same class of animal, and I'll continue to point out that new speciation between classes is not proven.

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.

If you want to argue that human and animal blood can be piped into one another, then feel free. Any poison can be injected into the bloodstream of a person or an animal.

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.

So, animal-human blood transfusion got successfully banned, because they are not compatible to give life to one another.

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.

Good job. Humans are either created that way, or have evolved that way. In the absence of direct scientific proof either way, then anyone can choose to believe one or the other, or remain a skeptic waiting for final proof.

I choose humans are created that way, which makes us separate from all animals created on earth. Someone else can choose to believe in being evolved that way from primates. I'm a creation believer, the other is an evolution believer.

Anyone who says either are scientifically proven, is an ideologue, not an honest believer, nor skeptic.

We also know that successful transfusion(s) between humans and other species can happen.

Case in point. Ideologically speaking, piping bad blood piped unhealthily into human beings certainly can happen. Medically speaking, banned.

However, not many ideologues practice their ideology, when it comes to personal welfare and safety. Haven't heard of any ''humans are animals' ideologues asking for blood from their primate kin.

Alternatively, you have a claim from a book, and that's basically all.

Ignoring the evidence of man being separate from all animals on earth, does not make it go away. Nor is it any argument against being created that way.

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.

It's the science way of proving at this time, that faith is required either way.

So far as being a level playing field. A series of physical similarities, does not adequately compare to a complete separation by spiritual intelligence, blood, and seed.

There is more present evidence for Gen 1 creation of man in God's image, than for man evolving from a primate animal.

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.

Deceiving oneself in an effort to reconcile the unreconcilable, is more like lying to oneself. It's mostly wishful thinking, when trying to please believers and unbelievers alike:

Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

The Bible definition of creation is in one day, completely independent from what has gone before. Evolution is over much time, with only different characteristics from what has gone before.

Irreconcilable in time and new creature.

[RBD]

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.

One last time: moral actions are for humans, not for animals.

When you say animals can behave immorally, then you'll at least be consistent. Until then, you're just arguing an ideology. The same for people who say humans are animals, but animals are not people.

[RBD]

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.

One last time: moral actions are for humans, not for animals.

When you say animals can behave immorally, then you'll at least be consistent. Until then, you're just arguing an ideology. The same for people who say humans are animals, but animals are not people.

[RBD]

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.

One last time: They are moral actions for humans, not for animals. Humans and animals can act instinctually. Only humans can act morally.

When you say animals can also act immorally, then you'll at least be consistent. In the meantime, you're arguing an inconsistent ideology. Animals can't act immorally, because they're not moral creatures.

Neither are animals people, because they are not human beings.

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?"

I accept the correction. Survival of the species is instinctual, especially for offspring. Only humans can choose to act contrary to normal instinct.

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 (**)

Endless points of argument.