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 #329]

Just because you're so personally invested in it, doesn't mean everyone else has to accept all the circumstantial evidence as conclusive.

....you say, as you dismiss the entire body of biological and paleontological evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial" and assert that a plant-covered Earth must have existed before the sun because a supposedly inerrant Bible verse says so.

[bluegreenearth]

It's not frustrating, but only normal for some people to try and define terms, and set narratives to produce their own desired outcome. That does not mean the opposing side must conform.

So long as there is any confirmed evidence, direct or indirect, then a claim is falsifiable and believable. As an eyewitness in a court of law, the Bible testimony can be judged as true, by the accuracy of all the indirect evidence surrounding it. Any juror can reasonably believe it, or not believe. However, no juror can say the Bible testimony can't possibly be true, so long as the surrounding evidence remains true.

It's the same for man created in God's image, or evolved from primates. There is present evidence surrounding both sides, but no scientific evidence proving either. Therefore, either creation of man, or evolution of man, can be believed as possible.

The comments above fail to appropriately address the stated grievance. To demonstrate a competent understanding of the objections levied against your argument, please provide a direct response to each of the following requests:

1. In your own words, accurately describe the problem of Underdetermination and its impact on the role of evidence.

2. In your own words, elucidate why the Verification Principle was ultimately abandoned as a criterion of meaning.

3. In your own words, explain the Principle of Falsifiability and how it functions to resolve the problems of Induction and Demarcation.

4. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Fallacy of Composition.

5. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the False Equivalence Fallacy.

6. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Appeal to Common Belief Fallacy.

7. In your own words, recount how to identify when an argument commits the Affirming a Disjunct Fallacy.

Note: Any response submitted to this post that does not directly address those specific requests will be justifiably dismissed as irrelevant and signal your concession of the debate. If you do not agree to these terms, then simply withhold from submitting a response.

[Jose Fly]

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.

You're still doing the same things, namely misusing terms and repeatedly posting complete nonsense.

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...

Sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to believe anything you post given that you offer no support for any of it other than your own say-so.

[Jose Fly]

False analogy. Primate ancestry is not accurate, when no parent of any human is shown to be a primate.

That's as stupid as saying I can't be of German ancestry because my parents aren't from Germany.

I consistently demand one simple thing: An actual complete 100% match between any human and any animal at any time on earth.

That's idiotic. If they were 100% the same, they'd be the same individual (I'm not even a 100% match with my brothers). Duh.

Then give the match, whether skeletal, biological, genetic, or 'alus'.

I already did.

It's not bizarre to demand positive proof, rather than just more similarities hinting at something that may be true, but not yet proven true.

Then go to courts and demand that they undo all rulings and decisions that were based on genetics matches and tell me how it goes.

It's not that the science you give is wrong, nor that you don't give it succinctly, and clearly enough for a layman to understand. It just doesn't reach the goalpost of a positive match between humans and primates at any time on earth.

That's nothing more than "Nuh uh".

[RBD]

The first separation is spiritual intelligence with power to do good or evil.

That brings us back to the question of whether or not the first humans were animals before they knew good and evil (Genesis 3:22).

Already answered.

The question whether the serpent was an animal that knew good and evil, was a better one.

You keep invoking "blood and seed" as what differentiate between humans and other organisms, but blood and seed are both physical and thus don't account for our spiritual distinction......unless the divide between the material and the spiritual is arbitrary and doesn't really exist.

No they don't. Which is why being created in God's image is first spiritual. Being physically created different from all the animals, is secondary.

Since we're just as physical as "animals" are, who's to say that they're any less spiritual than we are?

Just ask any animal you like. If you don't like the answer, then you can argue with them about it. I've entertained enough of this.

[RBD]

Unless you're misstating it, then the Egyptian cosmology contradicts itself: Creation does not evolve, nor arise from something else.

If the universe could be created with an original batch of stars and new stars form later, why couldn't the universe arise from primordial waters and new stars form later?

The question was about creation. Not about arising from primordial waters. And like banging from hot gasses, there's no direct evidence of either.

There's indirect evidence for both, and so either can be believed, at least until there is direct scientific evidence proving universal creation, or evolution.

[RBD]

[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.

Correct. It's call a rebuke.

[RBD]

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?

Answered enough times.

[RBD]

I can't believe this is an actual conversation, at this point still...?

Agreed. Drawing to a close, as we finish some hanging threads, or something new comes up.

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.

You have repeated, ad nauseum, that "no human blood is interchangeable with animal blood." Now you wish to pivot.

No, now I have to state the obvious: Humans and animals not being able to transfuse blood, means not doing so to give life.

It's not about the mechanical ability to pipe fluids into humans and animals alike.

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.

Since you have mentioned the court of law before, this entire process was brought forth in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in the 2000's. The "creationists" side had no response, which means they too had to reconcile evolutionary fact(s). Sorry buddy. I sent you a small clip explaining that specific element of the trial. But feel free to address the entire case.

No interested in the successes or failures of others. I answer for myself. There is no direct evidence that the 23 chromosomes, with 1 fusion, must be by evolution. Man with 23 and primates with 24 can still be by creation. People are free to believe either way, or remain a skeptic awaiting final proof.

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

If we try to muddy the waters this much, then maybe any/all assessed evidence is ultimately just faith-based inquiries?

Only committed ideologues say something is proven, when there is only circumstantial evidence..

And since an ideologue doesn't make difference between circumstantial and direct evidence, then the ideologue resorts to thinking nothing is real, when their ideology is freely rejected by others. They already blurred the lines of reality in the first place.

I'm not a creationist ideologue. I personally don't care what others believe. All I'm interested in is evidence for their decision. I completely understand that more people today may believe in primate-human evolution, due to all the modern circumstantial evidence surrounding it. However, creation is just as believable, if not more so.

Afterall, creation of man in the image of God has direct scientific evidence: Man's spiritual intelligence separation from all animals. The fact that mankind is a creature of science, proves that humans are not animals, that have no scientific knowledge, understanding, nor even curiosity at all.

The folly of scientific ideologues, is that they declare by their science that they must be animals, that are not scientific in the least.

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

I probably would have been right there with you if we both were having this discussion as little as a few hundred years ago. However, we have means to more discovery now.

True. Plenty of circumstantial evidence has been discovered in modern biological, genetic, skeletal remains, etc...It can certainly lead someone to believe in primate-human evolution. But without direct scientific proof, both creation and evolution remain a choice of faith.

Many times a flood of circumstantial evidence can persuade many to accept something as conclusive. It's called consensus. However, the independent skeptics will still wait for final direct proof, before accepting anything as proven true. Neither circumstantial evidence nor consensus proves anything must be true, except in the world of club-like mentality, group think, or ideological cults...

This is why so many Christians has had to adapt to keep Genesis relevant.

If adaptation means trying to believe both Gen 1 and primate-human evolution, then it only proves how many Christians don't believe Gen 1 as written. Which is simply a matter of half-hearted and unintelligent faith in the Bible.

[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.

You agreed that empathy, fairness, and justice are not instinctual topics, but moral ones.

False, unless you have a quote. And if I agreed, I was wrong. Give the quote, and I'll take a look. But if I did agree, I suspect it was for not taking enough thought on secondary issues, since the whole argument is baseless. Animals are not moral nor immoral.

'Humans are animals', and 'animals are moral', are ideological beliefs, that are proven inconsistent by personal unwillingness to say animals are also people, and animals are also immoral.

And whenever you want to say animals can also be immoral, then at least you'll be consistent.