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]

Yes, the origin of species when life begins. The first appearance of life on earth. And if that evolves from inorganic matter, than it's also the origin of the universe. Origin of species is not just speciation of living creatures after appearing on earth, but the originating of life and the universe itself. And if it's by evolution, and not by creation, then neither the universe nor life has an origin to begin with.

Proving animal speciation by evolution, concluding in humans from primates, must begin with proving an origin of the universe by evolution, which is not proven, nor can be proven, because it's not possible. Otherwise, evolutionary origin is not evolution, but creation.

Well, this has officially entered "too stupid to bother with" territory, so if you're a troll I say well done, and if you're not I say get a basic education.

Your mistaking a troll with someone that you can't answer. While they both can be personally upsetting, they're not the same thing.

For me, I only ignore trolls. And if I can't answer someone, then I must simply admit the correction. In either case, I avoid getting personally upset, and throwing a temper tantrum about it...

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.

[POI]

1. Homo sapiens have been on this planet way longer than the projected 6K years. Which means you must now pivot accordingly.

I haven't answered this one yet.

Or maybe you don't have an adequate answer, and skipped it, as this topic was addressed more than 200 posts ago now...

Jesus calls it lukewarm spittle.

You see how easy it is to play your game...? (case/point) - Please directly quote Jesus saying this and don't ad lib So please stop avoiding my repeated responses because I'm not 'quoting' you enough.

No need to answer here, because I already know what you really mean. Just like I know what you really mean when I paraphrase some of your other statements. It's funny how the 'moral' argument, which is a weak argument IMHO, is what decimates your position in this entire exchange. You are asking for 'direct scientific proof', and by your own admission, we have it. (i.e.) Other animals commit moral acts. Fin!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #406]

Are you now arguing for the old Eastern myth of humans walking on four hands?

Or, are you simply asking the age old question: Why hast thou made me thus? It's common sense that human physiology makes us more versatile and adaptable with constructive engineering skills.

Here's my expansion on that again:

If we had been suddenly created to walk upright, we should have feet more like those of ostriches [which evolved from bipedal dinosaurs]. Instead, our feet have the structure of a second pair of hands which we would have used before we became bipeds.

Our second pair of hands would have helped us to climb in trees, that being where we mainly lived before we took to the ground and became bipeds.

Such as the uniquely human opposable thumb...

Our big toes are clearly the thumbs on our second pair of hands. Why else would they be so big compared to our other footfingers?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

Scientists do not have a robust in the beginning. The burden of proof is not on the one who believes the universe came from something. The burden of proof is on the one who says the universe came from nothing.

[Difflugia]

The burden of proof is not on the one who believes the universe came from something.

No matter how made up it is.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

Scientists do not have a robust in the beginning. The burden of proof is not on the one who believes the universe came from something. The burden of proof is on the one who says the universe came from nothing.

Technically, the burden is on anyone making a positive claim. Therefore, the burden would be on both in this case. Also, none of the scientists that I'm aware of have claimed that the universe came from a philosophical nothing. Please identify a scientist who has claimed the universe came from a philosophical nothing.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #399]

I've already explained that certain conditions have to be present for remains to become fossilized,

I.e. a necessary reason why the record is not nearly complete, nor convincing to an objective skeptic.

Imaginary pictorials of 'hoped for' fossil confirmation, must still be used en lieu of fossil confirmation.

There's far more fossil evidence of primate ancestors of humans than there is of a talking snake.

No argument there. And so, there's more scientific evidence to believe in primate-human evolution, than in talking snakes.

Of course, the analogy admits that there's no direct proof of primate-human evolution, nor talking snakes.

And most importantly, it proves the separation between human beings from all animals on the earth: Talking.

If someone really believes humans are animals, they ought believe in talking animals...Just to be consistent.

There's enough circumstantial evidence for someone to believe primate-human evolution. There's also enough evidence for someone to believe man created in God's image, separate from all the animals of the earth.

You refer to the biblical account of the sudden creation of humans as "enough evidence" while dismissing the evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial".

Your response is the opposite of what I said. Try again. You're dumbing down the debate.

Remember----the evidence of human evolution isn't only in the fossil record. It's in our own bodies.

True. There is the circumstantial evidence of physical and biological similarities, which certainly can lead someone to belief in primate-human evolution.

However, without direct proof of primate-human evolution, anyone can logically believe humans began separate from all animals.

*If we had no evolutionary relation to the great apes, we would have 23 pairs of unfused chromosomes as a signpost shouting out, "Look! These guys are different! No evolution going on here!"

False. For the committed ideologue, the shout would be, "Look! These guys are only different by one! Plenty of evolution going on here!"

Otherwise, "Look. 23 pairs are 24. Humans are not primates, nor proven evolved from primates."

And here another argument comes into play against primate-human evolution: All primates having 24 chromosomes, includes all speciated members of the primate family. I.e. the scientific rule of primate speciation is 24 chromosome pairs. Humans having 23 pairs are by rule excluded from primate speciation.

Humans, with 23 chromosome pairs, cannot possibly be a speciated primate of 24 pairs.

Instead, we have a pair of chimpanzee chromosomes fused within us where they still have those chromosomes separate.

Presumptive ideological narrative.

We have a pair of human chromosomes fused within us. Chimps still have no fused chromosomes within them. All speciated primates have 24 chromosome pairs before and after evolution. Humans with 23 pairs cannot be an evolved primate species.

And without proof of humans ever having 24 pairs, then we cannot be an exception to the evolutionary rule of primates always having 24 pairs. Humans with 23 pairs were always humans, and primates with 24 pairs were always primates, from the beginning...

*If we had been suddenly created to walk upright, we should have feet more like those of ostriches [which evolved from bipedal dinosaurs].

Convoluted ideological narrative.

Instead, our feet have the structure of a second pair of hands which we would have used before we became bipeds.

Circular ideological narrative.

Finding something spiritual in our nature is well and good enough,

Look only as far as talking. By nature animals don't talk, remember?

You once demanded evidence of animals being less spiritual than us, and I told you to ask any animal. Did you? If so, what did they say? Of course, if you didn't even try, then you already know the answer like the rest of us normally intelligent human beings: By nature talking humans are not babbling baboons...

but insisting that we had to be planted here like a geranium in a flowerpot [to borrow an expression from Bertram Cates] so you can rule out every spiritual approach other than the biblical one is unwarranted.

Maybe you mean some far-eastern transcendental philosophy, or natural reincarnation theology, about humans being planted geraniums, not the Bible.

And if you mean some spiritual 'approach' shared by humans and animals, then have you asked an animal about it? Have you even tried?

Even the Graeco-Roman pagans, that believed in natural deism, never thought to ask animals about spiritual intelligence. Everyone knew Aesop was only personifying animals for the purposes of spiritual instruction in practical affairs of humans, not animals. They never thought for a second he was trying to say humans are animals.

The fact that is lost on 'humans are animals' ideologues, is that their ideology is a relatively new and extreme movement of non-creationists. Even the old pagan nature-deists would be offended by such an insult to human intelligence, that humans are animals.

[RBD]

Those who keep the fence where it belongs, are then accused of rejecting 'evolution'.

Those who (re-invent/re-define) speciation, common ancestry, and xenotransfusions are objectively guilty of committing fallacious reasoning.

Those who accuse opposition without proof, hate opposition.

[RBD]

1. Homo sapiens have been on this planet way longer than the projected 6K years. Which means you must now pivot accordingly.

I haven't answered this one yet.

Or maybe you don't have an adequate answer, and skipped it, as this topic was addressed more than 200 posts ago now...

At this time I don't. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic of people created in the image of God, vs primate-human evolution. It only has to do with the Bible timeline of the first people on earth.

If the human skeletal remains are indeed about 9,000 years ago, then the Bible timeline is challenged by 3,000 years. Which once again, has nothing to do with human beings beginning on earth separate from all animals, the same as we are today.

Once quick google search shows the most hits for Cheddar Man being a black Brit. Which is reported by science journalists, referencing other journalists, which already shows an ideological corruption of the discovery.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #406]

Are you now arguing for the old Eastern myth of humans walking on four hands?

Or, are you simply asking the age old question: Why hast thou made me thus? It's common sense that human physiology makes us more versatile and adaptable with constructive engineering skills.

Here's my expansion on that again:

If we had been suddenly created to walk upright, we should have feet more like those of ostriches [which evolved from bipedal dinosaurs]. Instead, our feet have the structure of a second pair of hands which we would have used before we became bipeds.

Our second pair of hands would have helped us to climb in trees, that being where we mainly lived before we took to the ground and became bipeds.

Should and would is not scientific was and did. Thinking evolutionary in order to surmise evolution, is obviously circular.

We do walk uprightly, without any evidence of humans ever not, and we don't have ostrich feet because of it. A second pair of hands helps primates to climb trees, which is where many of them mainly lived. Humans don't, nor is there any evidence we ever did.

Thinking objectively, we observe things objectively, not ideologically.

Such as the uniquely human opposable thumb...

Our big toes are clearly the thumbs on our second pair of hands.

So an evolutionary ideologue would surmise.

Our big toes are clearly made for balance and maneuverability to walk and run on feet.

Why else would they be so big compared to our other footfingers?

Is this your personal version of ideology-speak. Or, does such abnormal stuff now sound normal to you?