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...)

[Jose Fly]

Then new speciation is not acceptable to you

That's correct, because it's a term you made up.

, because you don't want to acknowledge the difference between proven evolution within a class of species, vs unproven evolution between the classes.

You also appear to not even acknowledge that the classes of species have no present relation to one another in breeding nor proven ancestry.

No the issue here is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are obviously quite ignorant of the actual science, and yet somehow manage to think yourself such an expert that the things you post are true merely because you say so.

It's quite the spectacle.

Whether the events are by creation or by evolution remains to be proven

Nope. We know speciation via evolution happens, because we've seen it many times. Conversely, we've never seen a species arise via creation by a god.

At least when it comes to origin of species, and whole new classes of species appearing on the earth, that are separate from those going before.

You clearly have no education or background in evolutionary biology, taxonomy, or any sort of life science.

You need to head over to the Science and Religion forum and post some of this there, and hopefully Barbarian will notice. He enjoys trying to educate people like you, whereas I'm not interested because you're oddly full of yourself.

More like, exactly when did once class of species give birth to another, such as a fish to an amphibian, reptile, or bird...Or, a primate to a human being...

This is why I'm no longer interested in trying to help you. I explained the silly errors in the above in a previous post to you, but clearly you didn't even bother to read it, let alone incorporate it into your thinking.

It's only your evolutionary view of origin of species, that is either layman ignorant, or ideologically bent.

Perhaps this is news to you, but there isn't a single scientist on the planet who cares what you think of their views.

Many people think they must choose between evolution itself or Gen 1, when arguing primate-human evolution. That's a layman's error. Ideologues may know the difference, but want to keep the evolution that is proven, attached to the other kind of evolution, that's remains unproven. It's indoctrination 102 of conclusion by improper transference...

They do the same with the unproven Big Bang theory piggy-backing proven universal expansionism.

Oh joy, now you're an expert in cosmology! You're a real Renaissance Man, aren't you?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #344]

....you say, as you dismiss the entire body of biological and paleontological evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial"

Correct. All indirect similarities, without a positive match past nor present.

How exactly are you defining a "positive match"? Are you asserting that every evolutionary ancestor of humans had to be 100% human in order to be an ancestor of humans?

You know any other kind? How about, when was the exact time in which a primate produced a human being? The skeletal records only show primates with distant similarities to humans, not a primate becoming a human.

This is simply the conundrum that Darwin acknowledged, when he argued for origin of species by evolution. In his Archipelagos finds, he had all the evidence in the world to conclusively prove, that a certain species can evolve into many different members, that can't even interbreed anymore, which is speciation of 2 new species evolving from one original. But that does not include evidence for two new classes of species evolving from an original class, such as amphibians from fish.

I.e. there is still no continuous evolution ending in a positive match, where any class of species 'gives birth' to another. I call it unproven new speciation, or speciation between classes, as opposed to proven speciation and established biological evolution.

Unlike proven speciation as that of Darwin, there is no record where primate skeletal remains consistently evolve into a whole new creature called mankind. There simply is no primate remains, that have some human characteristics, and are immediately followed by human remains. It's always some distant look alike, that must be projected forward as a human ancestor. The same is for any evolution between classes of species, such as a single archaeopteryx, that must be extrapolated along to become a bird rather than a reptile, or vica versa. And most of all it's the same for all the biological similarities between humans and primates, that must once again be theoretically advanced to into a positive match, where there is none.

Whether in remains or present biology, it's all circumstantial indirect evidence, that can lead someone to believe there can or even must be a match, though none is yet found for humans to be primates, or for humans to have primate ancestry.

And so, the argument against unproven new class speciation, is not an argument against evolutionary biology nor speciation within one class. Nor is there an argument against anyone believing in primate-human evolution based upon all the surrounding indirect evidence. So long as their remains gaps of separation without positive matches, then anyone can also believe in origin of species by creation.

For now, there remains no scientific proof forbidding either from being possible, and so possibly believed.

and assert that a plant-covered Earth must have existed before the sun because a supposedly inerrant Bible verse says so.

See above.

Assert could have existed without contradicting science. Also note plants existing by artificial light. Which you ignore.

How much plant growth does science tell us can take place in one day (Genesis 1:11-13)?

How much plant growth does science say can't take place in one day, whether by sunlight, artificial light, or light of the Creator? Are you saying that plants are growing all over the world, wherever plants are found? How about animal and human births?

Whether someone wants to believe in one day creation of plants and animals over the earth, as well as stars across the sky, is irrelevant to the fact that no science forbids it. Origin of the universe and species can still be scientifically accepted as by creation or evolution.

[RBD]

to accept the visible evidence of an evolutionary universe.

This is also a good point. There's direct evidence for universal evolution, the same as for speciation. It's universal expansionism, where the universe of stars is evolving with new stars.

There's just no direct evidence for evolutionary origin of universe and species. Scientifically, origin of species can be by creation or evolution, just not both at the same time.

I suspect many creationists that also accept evolution are like me: After the daily creation of the species and stars, there is evolutionary growth of the species and stars. And like me, those creationists are probably misrepresented as allowing for an evolutionary origin.

Darwin was spot on with proof of speciation after their appearances on earth. Then he leapt into an ideological confrontation with Gen 1, by applying it to origin of species without proof. That's how some layman evolutionists today become ideologues. They think their arguing origin of species, when they're only teaching speciation after creation. It's the same error or layman cosmologists, who think they are talking about the Big Bang, when they're only confirming present universal expansion after creation...

If any other them claim biological or cosmological degrees, then they are just deceitful ideologues, lumping unproven evolutionary origin with proven post-creation evolution.

The Bible doesn't need any advantage. The Book is what it is as written. People either believe it, and learn things of life accordingly, or they can go believe something else more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

Or they can believe the Bible because it is more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

This sounds fair, but isn't correct. A book can only be believed as written or not. It must be changed in order to apply personal tastes and whims to it. In effect, people write their own book in it's place. Tastes and whims only legitimately come into play, if a book is rejected and another one is sought for. That's where religion-shopping comes from. Dittoes for Bible translation-shopping.

Some of the biggest offenders of the Bible, as Jews and Christians that try to change the Book and the God, to suit their own tastes and whims. The Bible specifically rebukes such hypocrisy, and says to at least be honest and go find another book and god, that personally suits them better.

2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

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

[RBD]

[
You either didn't understand or didn't even read what I posted. The ALU sequences are shared by humans and other primates in the same locations, which is the same technique used in courts to establish relatedness.

That's the point. We're looking for matching humans with primates, not similarities between them, nor with similar tests that both can do. The sequences can establish which humans are related with humans, and also which primates with primates, but never establish humans related with primates, nor vica versa.

Just because the forensic test can be done on primates as well as humans, does not mean they therefore establish a primate parentage in court, or in a human family tree.

It's the same with blood transfusions between humans, and also between primates, but not between humans and primates.

[Jose Fly]

That's the point. We're looking for matching humans with primates, not similarities between them, nor with similar tests that both can do. The sequences can establish which humans are related with humans, and also which primates with primates, but never establish humans related with primates, nor vica versa.

Same as with your other posts....you're just plain wrong and it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the material I posted to you.

Since it's obvious you have zero interest in learning anything or correcting your goofy, childish mistakes I'll instead ask.....do you think you know biology, evolutionary biology, and genetics better than the professionals who work in those fields?

[RBD]

Then new speciation is not acceptable to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the difference between proven evolution within a class of species, vs unproven evolution from one class to another.

Please present the mechanism that better explains the life we see not just now, but also in the fossil record and please specifically account for the 400,000 species of beetle we now have on this planet. I would like to compare your mechanism to that of evolution.

Biological evolution after creation is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not.

I fear that you are rejecting the theory of evolution while arguing for a form of evolution

Educate yourself on the difference between origin of species, and speciation afterward. No life on earth is proven to originate by evolution. Species of animals on earth have proven to later evolve within their own class of species.

[RBD]

And humans with different blood types do not transfuse successfully, but they are all still humans. And why no animal at all can successfully transfuse to give life to any human, and vica versa.

You don't like it when I have to repeat myself. I've done so, in the hopes that you grasp what I am actually saying. You clearly still aren't. Please allow me to explain in another way...

And I'll return the favor as you go...

1) A homo sapien is one species. 1) Humans are not animals nor a species of animals.

2) A giraffe is one species. 2) Of the animal class of mammals.

3) A hippo is one species. 3) Of the animal class of mammals.

For the most part, one species cannot give blood to other species.

True. Not all species of animals, even in the same class, can successfully transfuse blood one to another, due to different animal blood type. Same for humans who cannot all share blood, due to different human blood type.

Humans have their one blood with many types, and animals have their one blood and many types. All humans cannot share our one blood together, nor animals share their one blood together. And no human can share our blood with any animal, nor any animal with us.

No human seeks a blood transfusion from animals, nor will any human give blood to an animal. Not to save life...

It's not just about the identified fusion alone. This is only one link in the chain. The 4-minute video explains.

If there's a direct proof of match, then you can quote it. Otherwise, I no longer wade through any more similarities videos...

by misrepresenting evolutionary biology entirely.

If there is a single misrepresentation, then you can quote it.

If you mean origin of species is not the same as speciation, then educate yourself.

[POI]

For the most part, one species cannot give blood to other species.

True. Not all species of animals, even in the same class, can successfully transfuse blood one to another, due to different animal blood type. Same for humans who cannot all share blood, due to different human blood type.

Humans have their one blood with many types, and animals have their one blood and many types. All humans cannot share our one blood together, nor animals share their one blood together. And no human can share our blood with any animal, nor any animal with us.

No human seeks a blood transfusion from animals, nor will any human give blood to an animal. Not to save life...

Various evolutionary pressures, such as a) disease immunity and b) adaptation to different environments, are some reasons why each species differ.

If there's a direct proof of match, then you can quote it. Otherwise, I no longer wade through any more similarities videos...

When "direct proof of match" is demonstrated, you just hand-wave it away. Case/point... Other species, besides homo sapiens, demonstrate empathy, fairness, and/or justice.

If you mean origin of species is not the same as speciation, then educate yourself.

As others have already pointed out as well, the 'education' is needed on your end. For starters, you completely invented your own made-up brand of speciation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #362]

How exactly are you defining a "positive match"? Are you asserting that every evolutionary ancestor of humans had to be 100% human in order to be an ancestor of humans?

You know any other kind? How about, when was the exact time in which a primate produced a human being?

Human beings are primates, so every time human beings reproduce, they produce a primate.

The skeletal records only show primates with distant similarities to humans, not a primate becoming a human.

The fossil record shows a progression from a common primate ancestor to modern humans.

There simply is no primate remains, that have some human characteristics, and are immediately followed by human remains.

That's because evolution happens gradually, not suddenly.

The same is for any evolution between classes of species, such as a single archaeopteryx, that must be extrapolated along to become a bird rather than a reptile, or vica versa.

It's "extrapolated" because it had reptile features and bird features, showing that a transition was taking place.

How much plant growth does science say can't take place in one day, whether by sunlight, artificial light, or light of the Creator?

"Light of the Creator" is not a scientifically measurable phenomenon. Its consideration, therefore, is not science. Science deals only with what is measurable and, as far as I know, seed-bearing plants have never been scientifically measured to grow in one day.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #363]

There's just no direct evidence for evolutionary origin of universe and species.

There's no direct evidence that Earth moves around the sun.

If that doesn't lead you to be a flat-earther, then you acknowledge that something need not be in direct evidence in order to be in evidence. Evidence discovered through deeper investigation is just as strong if not stronger.


Or they can believe the Bible because it is more suitable to their personal tastes and whims.

This sounds fair, but isn't correct. A book can only be believed as written or not. It must be changed in order to apply personal tastes and whims to it.

That would explain the Bible's many inconsistencies.