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 #366]

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

"Creation", as you define it, is not proven science. It's what a particular religion's book says.

To be objectively fair, then, Biological evolution after origin is proven science. Origin of species by evolution is not. Or, Post-origin biological evolution...

[RBD]

What RBD dishonestly quote mind out of their reply was:
"I fear that you are rejecting the theory of evolution while arguing for a form of evolution (400,000 beetles from just two on an ark some 6,000 years ago) that would make actual biologists blush."

I didn't read the rest of it. The Bible also says God created all the first stars in one day. Unbelief is not an argument. Nor is a lack of scientific support.

How can a person logically reject evolution while at the same time argue for a super accelerated form of it?

I'm finished correcting you accusing me of rejecting evolution itself.

[RBD]

Humans however do not speciate at all, no matter the conditions, which is another proof that humans are not an animal. Animals speciate, humans don't.

A modern white Brit could still mate with an ancient Australian aborigine.

This is because your provided sample group, in referencing the "aborigines", is too short of a timeline. You are speaking about a populous which is only ~50K years old. Speciation sometimes takes hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years to take place.

Which doesn't apply to humans, since we don't speciate.

Species with long generation times tend to have slower rates of speciation. This is because evolution is measured in generations, so the longer it takes an organism to reproduce, the slower genetic changes can spread throughout the population. With a generation time of around 25-40 years, humans evolve very slowly compared to organisms with faster reproductive cycles. Our lineage took about 7 to 10 million years to diverge, roughly 400,000 generations.

Once again, there is no direct evidentiary proof, that humans ever mated with any creature, that we cannot now mate with. Nor share blood with, nor have intelligent conversation with...The whole diatribe is learned, not proven.

Without such proof, observable and historical sense still applies: Humans are not a species, nor do we evolve, nor have lineage for millions of years.

Gars, which is an ancient fish, have the slowest known rate of molecular evolution among all jawed vertebrates. Their genomes change significantly slower than other animals, and they can produce viable, fertile hybrids with species that diverged 100 million years ago, suggesting a slow rate of speciation.

Bonytongues and gars: These fish families have living members that are highly similar to their fossil ancestors, indicating a slow rate of both speciation and phenotypic evolution.

Elephant sharks: These cartilaginous fish are among the slowest evolving species and offer a glimpse into the past due to their relatively unchanged morphology from their ancient ancestors.

Tuataras: These reptiles are known for their extremely slow evolution, with their form remaining stable for tens of millions of years. They also have very long generation times (reaching sexual maturity between 10-15 years) and slow metabolisms

Good for the fishes and the reptiles. Not human beings.

You do repeat your learning well...

[RBD]

Of course, I don't know biology better than you.

Yet somehow you think people should believe your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional biologists. Tell me....why? Why should anyone believe anything you say about biology?

Why would I care what anyone believes. If there's error in my layman's account of biology, show it. You're the 'expert'. Or, so you pretend.

However, I certainly do know more about unproven evolutionary origin of species than you.

How? Did you study it in college? Do you work in it professionally?

Anyone knowing the difference between unproven origin of species, and proven speciation, knows more about it, than anyone ignorant of it.

Do you really think knowledge of a subject is based upon how many degrees a person has?

So far as your accurate summary of Alu segmentation biology, and it's application to modern forensics, you've inaccurately concluded a match. Your biological science is good, but your conclusion is ideological, not proven fact.

Just because both humans and primates have Alu elements in their DNA, doesn't mean that the DNA is the same. No more than the fact of humans and animals both have blood, means humans and animals have the same blood. Your biological summary of Alu element-based DNA is spot on. But, it can only now be added to the list of similarities between humans and apes, that do not end in a match for any human-primate family relation nor ancestry.

In fact, Alu-based forensics prove the opposite of human-primate relations. The science you know factually, undermines the conclusion you desire ideologically. Alu-based forensics are now used to prove the separation between humans and animals. The DNA samples can now be positively proven as human or animal, not both at the same time. The Alu elements in genomes, that exist in humans and primates are not the same genomes of DNA. Like blood, they exist in humans and animals alike, but they do not match.

The benefits of modern forensics by Alu elements is not just to determine parentage, but is mostly used by investigators to prove whether the blood and DNA evidence of the crime scene are actually human or only animal. In the past, the red, sticky, and coppery smelling blood was just blood. There was no independent scientific means to determine whose, or even what, blood it was. Without eyewitness testimony or strong indirect evidence, there was no way to know whether the blood and tissue samples were actually human or not, much less whose ancestry. Now the wonders of modern science can prove the blood and DNA evidence is either human or animal.

The biology you summarize is good. The ideology you conclude is not. Once again, a 'humans are animals' ideologue accurately shows a list of scientific similarities, and then inaccurately concludes an ideological match, that never factually matches.

Notice anything about the above? You offer absolutely no support for any of it....other than your own say-so.

I notice you have no correction for it. Do you really think that knowledge of a subject is based upon how many citations there are?

In any case, so far, I've correctly explained how your Alu-based DNA instruction, and application to forensics, only serves to disprove any family relation between humans and primates...

[POI]

Below is to address the meat and potatoes, for which you have appeared to skip:

POI (post 353) Curious.... For evolution, what exactly would you count as "direct scientific proof"?

RBD (post 353) where humans and animals ever have the same spiritual intelligence and moral power to choose to do good or evil, righteousness or sin

POI (post 358):

1. Are the actions of a) empathy, b) fairness, and c) justice considered (moral or instinctual) actions? You already answered. RBD essentially stated they are moral actions.

2. Do any other species, aside from homo sapiens, ever perform the acts of a), b), and/or c)? The answer here is yes. Other species also present these actions.

Conclusion: According to RBD's given logic, other species, besides homo sapiens, also commit moral actions. How is RBD going to dig himself out of this one?

Humans however do not speciate at all, no matter the conditions, which is another proof that humans are not an animal. Animals speciate, humans don't.

A modern white Brit could still mate with an ancient Australian aborigine.

This is because your provided sample group, in referencing the "aborigines", is too short of a timeline. You are speaking about a populous which is only ~50K years old. Speciation sometimes takes hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years to take place.

Which doesn't apply to humans, since we don't speciate.

Nothing more has been presented but a complete hand-wave here.

Species with long generation times tend to have slower rates of speciation. This is because evolution is measured in generations, so the longer it takes an organism to reproduce, the slower genetic changes can spread throughout the population. With a generation time of around 25-40 years, humans evolve very slowly compared to organisms with faster reproductive cycles. Our lineage took about 7 to 10 million years to diverge, roughly 400,000 generations.

Once again, there is no direct evidentiary proof, that humans ever mated with any creature, that we cannot now mate with. Nor share blood with, nor have intelligent conversation with...The whole diatribe is learned, not proven.

Without such proof, observable and historical sense still applies: Humans are not a species, nor do we evolve, nor have lineage for millions of years.

More hand-waving. Nothing more. We'll just have to hyper-focus on the crux of this exchange, or the meat and potatoes, which is essentially tapping into a subcategory of the moral argument a bit, listed above.

[POI]

I suspect that addressing below is a futile endeavor... But, if any other creationists are following along, maybe they will not take a page from RBD's playbook. moving forward?

Evolutionary speciation within a class of animal is proven, but origin of species, and of man, is not verifiably proven: At this time, science allows for origin of species by creation or evolution. People are free to believe one or the other, but not both.

Google AI:

Speciation, the process by which new species arise from existing ones, is a well-documented and observed phenomenon in biology. There are several mechanisms by which speciation can occur, including allopatric speciation, where populations are geographically isolated, and sympatric speciation, where reproductive isolation arises without physical separation. Ecological speciation, driven by divergent natural selection in different environments, is also recognized as a common mechanism.

The evidence for evolution, including speciation, comes from various fields of biology:

Fossil Record: Fossils document the existence of past species and demonstrate how life has changed over time.

Comparative Anatomy: Similar physical features (homologous structures) in different species indicate common ancestry, according to Khan Academy.

Molecular Biology: Shared DNA and genetic codes among organisms, and similarities in gene sequences, point to a common ancestor.

Biogeography: The global distribution of species and the unique characteristics of island species reflect evolutionary processes.

Direct Observation: Evolution in action can be observed in organisms with short lifecycles, such as the development of pesticide resistance in insects.

The claim that the origin of species, including humans, is not verifiably proven by science, and that people are free to believe in either creation or evolution but not both, reflects a common misconception about the nature of science and the relationship between science and religion.

Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory, not a guess: In science, a theory is a thoroughly tested and widely accepted explanation for natural phenomena, supported by a vast body of evidence.

Evolution explains the diversification of life, not its origin: The theory of evolution focuses on how life changes over time and diversifies into new species, not on the initial formation of life from non-living matter (abiogenesis).

Scientific consensus on evolution: The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts evolution, including human evolution, according to BioLogos. Intersection of science and religion

Complementary perspectives: Science focuses on understanding the natural world through empirical evidence, while religion addresses questions of faith and meaning.

Compatibility for many: Many religious denominations and individuals find no conflict between their faith and the acceptance of evolution, seeing it as compatible with their understanding of a creator's role.

Conflict for some: Some religious perspectives, particularly those based on a literal interpretation of religious texts, may perceive a conflict. It is important to distinguish between scientific findings based on evidence and religious beliefs based on faith. While some find these domains to be in conflict, many others find them to be complementary ways of understanding the world and our place in it

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #379]

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

False. This is the lie of ideological evolutionists.

This is the finding of scientists. Science isn't "ideology" just because you don't like it.

There are many different forms of primates ancient and present, with varying degrees of similarity to human beings, but no continuous unbroken chain evolving into human beings.

I've already explained that certain conditions have to be present for remains to become fossilized, but there are enough examples to show that our primate ancestors become more and more like us as we look toward the present through the fossil record.

Fish did not produce amphibians, which did not produce reptiles, nor birds, mammal, primates, and man...Each class of animal on earth appeared independently of one another, and lastly appeared modern man and woman.

.....you say, conveniently ignoring the tangible evidence of Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus and other such transitional fossils----including the human ones.

Darwin's revolutionary work specifically proved a continuous, unobstructed transition of a species, into it's newly evolved state: The match from start to finish is distinctly proven.

Darwin attributed the human species to that evolutionary transition as well.


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

It must be extrapolated, because it is never distinctly proven. Ideologues must finish the job, that the factual record fails to do.

Stars formed in one day is never distinctly proven. A planet full of seed-bearing vegetation growing in one day is never distinctly proven. You're merely taking the unsubstantiated claims of your preference and presenting them as solidly established fact because that's what you want them to be. As long as that's the course you take, you're the ideologue who must finish the job that the factual record fails to do.

So they assumed for the earth or the sun rotating around one another, until it was scientifically proven.

They assumed that the sun moved around the earth until it was scientifically disproven.

This is a false definition of science, that is based upon a limited ideology.

Science is the study of cause and effect. Accepting what a particular religious text says because that text says it----that's a limited Ideology.


Science deals only with what is measurable

False again. Science also deals with what is theoretical.

Science begins with what is theoretical and gathers evidence which can be measured to either support or refute what is theorized.


If it's ideological to reject the first man being fashioned from dust in Genesis, then it's ideological to reject the first humans being fashioned from clay by Nu Kua.

[Clownboat]

I didn't read the rest of it. The Bible also says God created all the first stars in one day. Unbelief is not an argument. Nor is a lack of scientific support.

My claim was not that you didn't read it. My claim is that you quote minded my post. That is something you did because you have been exposed as someone that beliefs in a form of super rapid evolution while rejecting the actual theory of evolution.

You know this, which is why you continue to fail to address beetles (super advanced evolution) and instead you tell me about what the Bible says.

I'm finished correcting you accusing me of rejecting evolution itself.

Please address why you reject the theory of evolution while arguing that some super advanced evolution took place (1 species of beetle becoming 400,000 in a matter of some thousands of years).

[Jose Fly]

Why would I care what anyone believes.

You didn't answer the question. Why should anyone believe your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional scientists?

Anyone knowing the difference between unproven origin of species, and proven speciation, knows more about it, than anyone ignorant of it.

Do you really think knowledge of a subject is based upon how many degrees a person has?

You didn't answer the question. How did you acquire more knowledge than professional scientists on "unproven origin of species"?

I notice you have no correction for it.

I did that earlier and your response was nothing more than "Nuh uh".

Do you really think that knowledge of a subject is based upon how many citations there are?

No. Do you really think things are true just because you say they are? If I post "the moon is made of cheese" here, is that sufficient to establish that the moon is indeed made of cheese?

In any case, so far, I've correctly explained how your Alu-based DNA instruction, and application to forensics, only serves to disprove any family relation between humans and primates...

No you haven't. If you really think you have, why don't you write up your alleged refutation and send it to the journal that published the paper I linked to? Do you really think you know more about genetics and comparative genomics than professional geneticists?

[Clownboat]

Why would I care what anyone believes.

You didn't answer the question. Why should anyone believe your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional scientists?

Anyone knowing the difference between unproven origin of species, and proven speciation, knows more about it, than anyone ignorant of it.

Do you really think knowledge of a subject is based upon how many degrees a person has?

You didn't answer the question. How did you acquire more knowledge than professional scientists on "unproven origin of species"?

I notice you have no correction for it.

I did that earlier and your response was nothing more than "Nuh uh".

Do you really think that knowledge of a subject is based upon how many citations there are?

No. Do you really think things are true just because you say they are? If I post "the moon is made of cheese" here, is that sufficient to establish that the moon is indeed made of cheese?

In any case, so far, I've correctly explained how your Alu-based DNA instruction, and application to forensics, only serves to disprove any family relation between humans and primates...

No you haven't. If you really think you have, why don't you write up your alleged refutation and send it to the journal that published the paper I linked to? Do you really think you know more about genetics and comparative genomics than professional geneticists?

Rejecting established science can make some people feel like they are the experts and that can be a good feeling. One that many will seek to maintain. For anyone that questions this, try debating a flat earther.