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 #428]

Do you believe that there's a talking snake in Genesis?

The challenge is to the 'humans are animals' believers.

The challenge of the talking snake is to you.

If you sidestep to how baboons babble, birds chirp, and whales sing, then no person can be any animal, that can't talk.

Baboon troops have complex social dynamics, and vocalizations play an important role in communication.

If this is your answer, then the above applies.

What I cited shows that baboon language is far more complex than "babbling".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #429]

Just as similarities never make a match between humans and apes, so with hands and feet. Fingers and toes are similar too, but fingers are not toes and vica versa.

Fingers and toes are similar, indicating that they evolved for similar functions.

fingers enlarge in size away from the thumbs.

Then why are our pinkies so much smaller than our thumbs----on both pairs of hands?


And while we're at it----if we were suddenly created to eat the fruit of the Garden of Eden, why do we have canine teeth?

[POI]

If you want to show where my definitions are wrong, then quote show specifically where and how.

But I already have, and you do not adjust.

Case/point, there exists no term labelled "new speciation". This is why I ask where you get your information? There is instead just the term "speciation", with differing types. These types are: allopatric, sympatric, peripatric, parapatric, and artificial speciation. I've already asked which one you wish to address for your position, and you have ignored.

Same goes for xenotransfusions, which is the transfusion of blood from one species to another. While historically used with humans, it's now primarily a veterinary practice, particularly for cats receiving blood from dogs in emergency situations. While effective in the short term, xenotransfusions can lead to delayed hemolytic reactions, and should be used cautiously. Though presented as temporarily successful between humans and a lamb, it is no longer advised, due to species possessing differing immune systems and also the possibility of hemolytic reactions.

[POI]

The Bible timeline I argue is only for 'young' humans, animals, and present plant life on earth, that begins after Gen 1:3. The argument is not about the age of the universe and the earth.

Okay. Aside from reading the Bible, where exactly do you get your information that humans are so 'young'? I would really like to know?

In any case, none of this has anything to do with disproving Gen 1 account of life creation on earth, including people in God's image.

In honor of posts 149 and 358, the meat and potatoes of our exchange has been perpetually avoided.

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral acts.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. Genesis 1 is incorrect.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]


RBD,

Relative to the Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, where they both contradict each other, then barring this biblical axiom, I have to ask you the following biblical questions relative to Jesus' creation stories as God:


1. Then God said, And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, Jesus as god created Adam form earthly dust (Genesis 2:7)

Then since your Jewish gods are in a plural form of "us," they said Adam will resemble them. Therefore, since Adam had a penis to procreate his Jewish god's creation, then like Adam, Jesus as God and the other God of mention in his "us" form in heaven, where these Gods have a PENIS, urinates, and shytes in resembling Adam in having to do the same!.... What?

Do you accept this Biblical axiom above today, and if not, why not?



2. Have you ever thought why the Jewish God Jesus had to create a 93 billion light years in diameter universe to begin with, where at one time, Jesus as God literally stopped the sun from moving from around the earth (Joshua 10:12-13) so the Israelites could have more day time to defeat their enemies? This notion obviously implies that the earth is either the center of the universe as it was thought in biblical times, or the sun rotated around the earth along with all visual stars.

Do you accept this biblical fact shown above today, and if not, why not?



3. Did you ever think of the embarrassing fact of Adam being created from the "dust" of the earth? Additionally and embarrassingly; Jesus as God created a helpmate for Adam by FIRST creating all of the animals that are existing today (8.7 million different species), whereas Adam was created with a male anatomy, and so were the animals, therefore God set up Adam to have sex with said animals for procreation! Huh?

The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man (Adam) called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

The godly verse above obviously did not include all the insects and fish, etc., that God had to create as well, whoops!

Therefore, do you think the Jewish Christian God wasn't that smart to perform this additional act to be able to mention it in the first place?



4. Then of course, this God within the Bible saw that He made a huge mistake of possible "Bestiality" between Adam and the animals, therefore He then created woman from Adam's rib:

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." (Genesis 2: 18:21)" ...... Whew, Adam was now saved from having to have procreation with the animals!

Question, do you think that your God took a rib from the 8.7 million different male animals to create the female animals of said specie like he had to do with Adam?


Thank you for your time as I await you in addressing the creation story narratives above, and the answers to my questions.





.

[Clownboat]

Clownboat: "Please address why you reject the theory of evolution"
RBD: "I'm finished correcting you accusing me of rejecting evolution itself."

If RBD is to be believed, RBD has corrected their thinking on this matter and no longer rejects the theory of evolution.

[RBD]

Note: This post is addressed to the general audience and not to any particular individual.

The difference between a theist's life-long faith in an unfalsifiable claim and a scientist's tentative acceptance of a falsifiable claim...and continues to survive when challenged with new experiments. while the unfalsifiable claim is not testable at all.

The difference between a theist's faith in an unfalsifiable claim and a scientist's tentative acceptance of a falsifiable claim, when both claims are unproved by direct evidence, is only ideological.

Faith is acceptance without proof. Faith is strengthened by circumstantial evidence, and survives so long as not proven untrue.

Something believed, but not yet proven true by direct evidence, is either defined as testable and falsifiable, or as untestable and unfalsifiable. Only biased ideologues have two different definitions for the same circumstance, in order to apply one definition prejudicially and the other favorably.

The moment theists find themselves unable to identify a quantity and/or quality of any type of reasonably obtainable evidence that they would accept as sufficient to disprove a particular claim contained within their holy book, they have encountered the Unfalsifiability Problem.

The moment evolutionists find themselves unable to identify a quantity and/or quality of any type of reasonably obtainable evidence that they would accept as sufficient to disprove a particular claim contained within their ideology, they have encountered the Unfalsifiability Problem.

The statement doesn't make sense, but it ought at least work both ways.

Because it is not possible for them to ever test these unfalsifiable claims, theists are compelled by a religious commitment to maintain a life-long hope and/or trust (i.e., faith) that those otherwise unbelievable ideas are not false.

Because it is not possible for them to ever test these unfalsifiable claims, evolutionists are compelled by a ideological commitment to maintain a life-long hope and/or trust (i.e., faith) that those otherwise unbelievable ideas are not false.

Once again, the statement is false, but it ought be applied consistently.

Faith, hope, and trust in something not directly proven, doesn't make it 'unbelievable'.

At the same time, scientists do not require faith to tentatively accept a rigorously tested falsifiable claim.

Faith is accepting something not disproven. Testing to prove it true, is an act of faith.

This is because tentative acceptance does not entail an emotional and/or intellectual committent to maintaining hope and/or trust in the claim

Then some keep testing to prove it's true, because it's just a job, not an adventure. So, probably not rigorously tested.

but an understanding that it may become justifiable to abandon the falsifiable idea if it is ultimately disproved by a future discovery of the expected disconfirming evidence.

We ought abandon trying to prove something is true, when proven untrue? Sure. But try telling that to the committed ideologue...

In other words, scientists do not provisionally accept a falsifiable claim because they are hoping and/or trusting it is true but because it has been demonstrated to survive all the tests that were designed to possibly disprove it.

In other words, they've ceased to demand direct evidence, and declare it true by circumstantial evidence alone. It applies to people acting by their faith, and juries making verdicts.

As such, if new evidence emerges in the future to disconfirm the falsifiable claim, scientists are not obligated by a faith commitment to continue defending the hypothesis

As such, if new evidence emerges in the future to disconfirm the falsifiable claim, no one is obligated by a faith commitment to continue defending the hypothesis, except for committed ideologues.

[quote=bluegreenearth post_id=1174179 time=1753581111 user_id=14325}


Meanwhile, theists must defer to hope and/or trust in the truth of various unfalsifiable theist claims, because there is no possible way for them to discover if any of those ideas are false.[/quote]

Meanwhile, evolutionists must defer to hope and/or trust in the truth of various unfalsifiable evolutionary claims, because there is no possible way for them to discover if any of those ideas are false.

Or, in falsifiable evolutionary claims, depending on which definition is used for all claims unproven by direct evidence.

Furthermore, many theists tend to become emotionally and intellectually invested in the unfalsifiable religious ideas for which they could possibility be mistaken.

Furthermore, many evolutionists tend to become emotionally and intellectually invested in the unfalsifiable religious ideas for which they could possibility be mistaken.

Ideologues will be ideologues, whether creationist or evolutionist.

This increases the probability that a theist will commit a Sunk Cost Fallacy when defending those claims against legitimate objections. Of course, individual scientists and some of their advocates could also become emotionally and intellectually invested in a particular claim and potentially commit a Sunk Cost Fallacy when defending it.

For once, the second half doesn't need to be added for consistency.

Therefore, the theists and all others who object to the provisional acceptance of a particular falsifiable scientific claim have an obligation to provide the necessary disconfirming evidence if they intend to disprove it.

Therefore, the evolutionists and all others who object to the provisional acceptance of a particular falsifiable scientific claim have an obligation to provide the necessary disconfirming evidence if they intend to disprove it.

Back to needing to add the second.

However, this only applies to biased unbelievers seeking to disprove something, that is not disproven.

Objective creationists and evolutionists simply continue seeking to prove what they believe. The objective skeptic waits for proof either way.

So, when encountering theists who demand evidence that will "prove" a particular scientific claim is "true" to their satisfaction, the only appropriate response is to remind them of how science does not insist the hypothesis is absolutely true.

So, when encountering evolutionists who demand evidence that will "prove" a particular creation claim is "true" to their satisfaction, the only appropriate response is to remind them of how science itself does not insist the hypothesis is absolutely true.

I.e. they need to keep in mind the standard of scientific theory vs proven fact, applies to unproven creation and evolution alike.

Otherwise, to engage with their unreasonable demand by submitting various examples of compelling evidence is to share in and perpetuate the theist's reasoning error.

The demand for direct proving evidence is never unreasonable, if something must be accepted as absolutely true, and not only a possible hypothesis. Only the ideological proselytizer resents the demand.

Instead, the theist must be asked to identify the evidence that scientists should expect to find if the specified claim is false and to provide the required disconfirming evidence in accordance with the scientific method. If the theist is unable to identify and subsequently provide the expected disconfirming evidence, then the tentative acceptance of the specified scientific claim as the most reasonable explanation remains reasonably justified.

Instead, the evolutionist must be asked to identify the evidence that creationists should expect to find if the specified claim is false and to provide the required disconfirming evidence in accordance with the scientific method. If the evolutionist is unable to identify and subsequently provide the expected disconfirming evidence, then the tentative acceptance of the specified creationist claim as the most reasonable explanation remains reasonably justified.

No further defence is required.

No defense is needed at all for the creationist or the evolutionist to choose to believe in creation or evolution, so long as neither claim is proven nor disproven. There's enough circumstantial evidence for both.

If someone believes the universe began by creation, then no scientific evidence disproves it. If someone believes the universe never began, but has always been evolving, then no scientific evidence disproves it. So far, it remains a matter of accepting one or the other by faith, with indirect evidence surrounding both.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #428]

Do you believe that there's a talking snake in Genesis?

The challenge is to the 'humans are animals' believers.

The challenge of the talking snake is to you.

If you sidestep to how baboons babble, birds chirp, and whales sing, then no person can be any animal, that can't talk.

Baboon troops have complex social dynamics, and vocalizations play an important role in communication.

If this is your answer, then the above applies.

What I cited shows that baboon language is far more complex than "babbling".

Complex? They look and sound pretty simple to me.

In fact, one of the things that makes humans so separate from all animals, is that humans often make the simple things too complex. They do it by talking too much, which animals can't do at all:

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

Ecc 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Humans can certainly take a cue from animal practicality, without needing to be animals.

[RBD]

And while we're at it----if we were suddenly created to eat the fruit of the Garden of Eden, why do we have canine teeth?

Why do vegetarians only use their teeth for vegetables?

Gen 1 never forbids people eating meat, only that plants and fruits are (also) given for food. Meat eaters can also eat salads.

The Bible only condemns eating meat raw and drinking the blood. It also condemns forbidding to eat meat, as in a vegetarian religion.

Also, the fact that humans eat every kind of animal meat on earth, mammals, birds, fish, and insects, shows again a separation of people from all animals.

[RBD]

If you want to show where my definitions are wrong, then quote show specifically where and how.

But I already have, and you do not adjust.

Case/point, there exists no term labelled "new speciation".

I've responded already. A distinction without a difference. Otherwise, speciation doesn't include new species.

I also clarify it as specifically applying to class speciation, where speciation within a class is proven, such as land and water mammals. But inter-class speciation is not proven, where on class speciates into a whole new class, such as fish to mammals.

Proven speciation does not include class to class, nor animal to man. Darwin's title, Origin of species by evolution is an ideological shot over the bow of origin of species by creation. His discovery of facts more accurately applies to Evolution of species.

Origin of species by evolution is also a self-contradiction: Nothing can originate by evolution, but can only be created. For the universe to have evolved, there must always have been a universe to evolve. Universal evolution can never allow for an original beginning of anything in the universe.

This is why I ask where you get your information? There is instead just the term "speciation", with differing types. These types are: allopatric, sympatric, peripatric, parapatric, and artificial speciation. I've already asked which one you wish to address for your position, and you have ignored.

My answer was sufficient for the difference between speciation by evolution, vs new class and origin of species by evolution.

Either of the theorized mechanisms of speciation can apply to speciation within it's own class. Neither of them can apply for an evolved origin of the universe, of life, nor of a new class of species...

Same goes for xenotransfusions, which is the transfusion of blood from one species to another. While historically used with humans, it's now primarily a veterinary practice, particularly for cats receiving blood from dogs in emergency situations. While effective in the short term, xenotransfusions can lead to delayed hemolytic reactions, and should be used cautiously. Though presented as temporarily successful between humans and a lamb, it is no longer advised, due to species possessing differing immune systems and also the possibility of hemolytic reactions.

And answered this enough times.