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]

YOUR EXISTING THREAD HEREIN:
There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

RBD, your pseudo-christian embarrassment is shown below in this thread of yours because the posts of mine, that you are sheepishly running away from in the name of Satan, are listed below:

Post number 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 473, 474, and 480!

.

When you quote me, and show in error in it, then I'll be glad to look at it.

But rereading your same old self-absorbed diatribes is NOT going to happen. Not by me anyway.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #510]

The proof I state is man's complete separation from the animal kingdom by our creative spiritual intelligence, and matters of faith and disbelief.

But there isn't a complete separation between us and the rest of the animal world, as our animal bodies clearly show. So your "proof" of complete separation is disproven.

[RBD]

Like animal DNA, Neanderthal DNA is not human DNA: No match. All humans have human DNA, not just mostly human DNA.

This failed to account for the Neanderthal DNA that is found in most humans.

DNA found in most humans is a biologic and logical nonsequitur, that only an ideologue would think to say.

All humans have the same DNA within .1%. No animal has human DNA.

If it's not the same human DNA in all humans, it's not human, but animal. No human nor animal can have the same DNA only found in some, part, or most humans...

Now, if Neanderthals actually have human DNA, then of course Neanderthals are humans.

Yes, Neanderthals were human, specifically Homo neanderthalensis. They interbred with Homo sapiens which is why you most likely have Neanderthal DNA in you.

If they were human, they only bred with humans, and is why all humans have human DNA.

You're ideology-speak is interesting, but wearing thin.

What does it mean to have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA?
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/unders ... erthaldna/

Then one, or the other, or both are not human. Both can't be human.

The same as only humans have human blood, and only animals have animal blood.

What you say is silly because humans are animals.

Spoken like a true ideologue, again.

an-i-mal
/anm()l/
noun
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

When anyone states the obvious, that we have the same natural flesh of all living creatures on earth, and we have similar physical and biological characteristics as some animals, then we agree. Including when anyone says they believe speciation and human evolution is possible. And if they want to believe it, then I'll not argue against their faith.

Otherwise, 'humans are animals' ideologues are only ideologues, who ideologically argue against their own creative spiritual intelligence. Which of course, only people can do. Not any animal.

If by creation, then so also their great multitude of variation in a day. That's the power of creation, not limited to the evolutionary process.

Do you not know your own story? Two of each kind on the ark. The bible doesn't mention any creation events taking place after the flood.

No one said the Bible includes every event ever taking place, especially those that are self-evident according to the Book. The Book itself is written for intelligent spiritual faith, not playing to the incessant demands of fault-finders.

Humans are primates, because it has been demonstrated. Imagine how weak my argument would be if all I was doing was spouting my beliefs and not demonstrating the truth of them.

I asked you to stop asking for proof when discussing doing science

This is another example of ideological self-contradiction and evasion.

The argument is weak, because no factual proof is yet given. 'Not demonstrating the truth of them' is a sophistical way of appearing to have proved something by words alone, without giving factual proof. The only attempted 'demonstration of truth' given, is the attempted demonstrations of more theories about evolution, in order to make the theory itself appear factual. They only sound factual, but not proven by fact.

Evolution of life and species is only an academic cottage industry of theories upon theories. It's the science of theories, that has no factual proof, nor practical purpose. A uniquely modern example of bloated academe, whose only purpose is to sustain itself through for papers, classrooms, and speeches.

Evolution of life and species: The 'scientific' bureaucracy of theoretical paperwork and talk.

And unlike primate human evolution that only has circumstantial evidence, man being created different from all animals, has one daily obvious direct proof: Man's spiritual intelligence separates us from all animals on the earth. Physically we are made in the image of all flesh on earth, but we are made intelligently separate from all animals on earth:

What are you on about!?! Please show that you speak the truth.

Pro 1
Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: How long, ye foolish ones, will ye love folly? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

John 18
Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #510]

Ideologues don't know the difference between possibilities and realities, when they make possibilities a reality in their own mind. Ideological reality is not what is factually proven, but only what is possibly imagined.

Then isn't imagining a snake using human language ideological?

[1DoubtingThomas]

YOUR EXISTING THREAD HEREIN:
There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

RBD, your pseudo-christian embarrassment is shown below in this thread of yours because the posts of mine, that you are sheepishly running away from in the name of Satan, are listed below:

Post number 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 473, 474, and 480!

.

When you quote me, and show in error in it, then I'll be glad to look at it.

But rereading your same old self-absorbed diatribes is NOT going to happen. Not by me anyway.

^^^ RBD, the RUNAWAY from Atheists posts to him because he can't address them!

It is totally embarrassing in how long you have been running away from my post number 499! At what point do you just accept that your Bible ignorance has no bounds? You are one of the most feeble-minded pseudo-christians that I have ever come across, where it seems as though you are proud to be a BIBLE FOOL!

You have to REREAD my posts when I bring them to the forefront again, and again, and again , BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!


Therefore, I will start anew and correct your Bible Dumbness from this time forward at your embarrassing expense in front of the membership, and especially in front of the Atheists!


.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #495]

Without the concocted theory of an evolutionary process, which in this case doesn't exist, then the lone hybrid Archeopteryx would simply by that, a lone hybrid reptile or bird.

A "lone hybrid" reptile or bird [Archaeopteryx].....a "lone hybrid" whale with legs [Ambulocetus].....

And remember these guys?....
https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-snake- ... on-1473003

There seems to be a pattern here.

Yes there is a pattern of not satisfying speciation's own demand of evidence.

Speciation is not a supplemental theory to creation, but is only a counter-theory to creation. Therefore, it's process cannot allow for any creation present. Therefore, only consistent incremental changes from matching one species to match a new species, can prove speciation and avoid an possible creation.

Speciation's own demand is it's own worst enemy to be proven. Speciation itself can never be satisfied with the evidence, unless all the incremental changes are fulfilled in the fossil record. Evolutionists can say they are personally satisfied with single isolated off-shoots of a species, but not speciation itself.

An isolated example of species similar to another, does not prove the evolutionary process, in order to reject any creation is possible.

One single off-shoot does not make an incremental process. It does still make for creation.

All we have from species evolutionists is a described 'process', that is never proven for any given species evolving into a whole newly different species. All we ever get are these isolated anomalies, that are said to be a link of a chain, that has no other links.

As I've pointed out, certain conditions have to exist for remains to fossilize.

Nor do theoretical reasons of 'why not' the necessary evidence. The necessary incrementalism that speciation demands, cannot be dismissed by almost, and why only almost, otherwise creation is still possible.

Remember, it's evolution's own demand, that is not being satisfied. Creation isn't demanding such a detailed fossil record. If anyone is upset by the evolutionary demand, then let them complain to evolutionary theory.

It's not the creationist that is overbearing in the demand for satisfactory evidence, but it's speciation that maybe needs to lighten up? Change current speciation demand, and then maybe another 'kind' of evolution can be proven by satisfactory fossil evidence.

The creation demand is much simpler: Life and species on earth.

Still, when you look at the distribution of fossils in layers of earth you see that more modern-looking specimins are found in younger layers. That suggests transitional changes.

Another good suggestion, if the evidence of incrementally changed specimens ever leads from matching one species to matching an entirely new one...Otherwise, they are specimens of a created species.

You see your problem here is not with creation's demands, but with evolution's. The conundrum of Marx's theory of natural selection of the species, is simple: It's not just about why the evidence doesn't prove it in detail, but that it must do so in order to rule out creation.

If the fossil record doesn't do so to speciation's own requirement, then people can say it's suggestive, and can even believe it's true, but no one can factually rule out creation of the species, and declare there is only evolution of the species.

And the fact that all the evidence must be millions of years ago, provides convenient excuses for not finding the many necessary transitions. And then an isolated hybrid is declared an entirely process, that millions of years is still 'hiding'...It's built in job security for 'scientists', that are paid to keep searching. And of course paid for by gvt funding to ideological science depts.

Wow----you've reduced evolutionary science to the plot of a cheap novel?

Hey, without speciation's own incremental details in hand to prove it's not just a theory, then it's just an objective description of modern evolutionary science. But not a novel. The facts of it's continued systemic support is all to real. Though it's begun to wain over the past years. SETI is no longer gvt funded, and field expeditions are losing gvt grants. But the classrooms still remain in colleges, if not very full.

Even with an incomplete fossil record,

Exactly. Even with an incomplete fossil record, speciation's demand remains unsatisfied.

there's still more evidence of evolution than there is of a snake using human language to talk to a woman in a garden.

No argument there. But then, speciation is not at all satisfied with being more believable than talking snakes.

Seriously, you either need to have a less-demanding speciation evolution, or just keep looking, until your own evolutionary process is satisfied with the fossil record.

In the meantime, creation's requirements are already met: Life and species on earth.

[RBD]

So, the things that make a primate, make a person?

This is about what makes a primate----not about what makes a person.

Correct. A person is not a primate. It's only about what scientists say makes a primate.

The discussion of what makes a person is philosophical.

Not when saying people are primates. Or, that's just a philosophical statement, and only ideological...

You see how far astray this is? People are arguing about what makes a primate, and not what makes a person, when people are saying they are primates.

And what makes a person is only philosophical. Being a primate is real, not being a person, which is only philosophical.

What makes a primate is anatomical.

Now, you are being factual. No one argues that people do not have natural flesh bodies like all living creatures on earth, nor that are bodies are physically similar to some animals in shape and biological make up.

That can't be disputed. That does not make people primates, unless people are only physical bodies on earth: Humans are only animals like all physical animals on earth. Being a person is only philosophical.

Spiritual intelligence is only a philosophy.

So also for the one thing that makes a person not a primate, Spiritual intelligence and Faith

Since being a person is philosophical and being a primate is anatomical, why can't a person be a primate?

Point proven. If being a person is not real, but only being an animal. Maybe even a bit extreme for the average atheist. I mean, who else is willing to admit they are not a person, but only an ape? Or, that being a person is only a philosophy, not real like being a primate.

When you're talking about observable scientific and biological fact about natural flesh and physical make up, you're obviously spot on. But, when you talk about being a person, you've lost most people. I would say all people. So maybe just lost all sensible people, who don't equate being a person with just being an unreal philosophy....

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #516]

Seriously, you either need to have a less-demanding speciation evolution, or just keep looking, until your own evolutionary process is satisfied with the fossil record.

In the meantime, creation's requirements are already met: Life and species on earth.

Then you need to have a more convincing proposal than a snake which could use human language.

In the meantime, creation's requirements are still met: the goddess Nu Kua fashioning humans from clay.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #517]

This is about what makes a primate----not about what makes a person.

Correct. A person is not a primate. It's only about what scientists say makes a primate.

"Primate" is a scientific designation, and humans are scientifically primates.


The discussion of what makes a person is philosophical.

Not when saying people are primates. Or, that's just a philosophical statement, and only ideological...

You've made clear that you apply the label "ideological" to things you don't like.

You see how far astray this is? People are arguing about what makes a primate, and not what makes a person, when people are saying they are primates.

"People" aren't arguing about what makes a primate----you are arguing about what makes a primate, when what makes a primate is clear and straightforward:

hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

Humans have all of those features. Ergo, humans are primates.

You don't deny that humans are mammals, do you? You don't deny that we're vertebrates, right? "Primate" is another catagory we fall into.

When you're talking about observable scientific and biological fact about natural flesh and physical make up, you're obviously spot on.

Right----natural primate flesh. Physical primate makeup.

One distinction among us other than our fused pair of primate chromosomes [and maybe a result of the fusion] is that we have the largest primate brain. That extra brain power gives us an advantage when it comes to abstract contemplation. Thus, any creator who has intended us for loftier thoughts has seen fit to give us the evolutionary tools to handle them.

And that's a way for a primate to be a person.


But if you still want to argue for geranium-in-a-flowerpot creation, here's another question on which to ruminate:

Why were male humans created with nipples?

[Clownboat]

Then you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution and you need to look up both terms and educate yourself. Words have meaning and you are using them incorrectly.

More proof of ideology ignorant of it's own science.

I acknowledge that you make an ad hominem attack in place of educating yourself on the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

Abiogenesis is a theoretical evolutionary process. Abiogenesis is not a creation event, like Genesis.

I have asked you to pretend that your preferred god concept created life in order for us to discuss how life may have evolved. Why are you incapable of pretending that your god created life when I'm capable of doing just that?

If abiogenesis is not by evolution, then it is genesis by creation.

You have been supplied with at least one other possibility. I acknowledge that you have forgotten and I am still willing to pretend that your preferred god concept created life so we can then discuss how it may have evolved.

If abiogenesis is not with evolution, then evolution is not with naturally gradual change:

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow.

Evolution is not evolution.

Leaving this here for all to see.

The theoretical objection is that evolutionary abiogenesis, where life is first produced from inorganic matter, is not evolutionary biogenesis, where life is produced from life. And so, abiogenesis is said not to do with evolutionary biogenesis.

Do to the fact that you are so utterly confused about what evolution is, I'm now begging that you pretend with me that your preferred god concept created life so we can then attempt to discuss how it has changed. With me in this thread, it is assumed that a god or gods of your choosing created life. Therefore there is no need for you to continue to bring up abiogenesis.

I.e. the unproven gradual process changing inorganic matter into the first organic life,

Not only is it unproven (proof is for math and whiskey), it is assumed (in this thread) that your preferred god concepts created life. I don't see how I can be any more charitable to you here.

Evolution of life and species cannot allow for creation, simply because it cannot allow for an exact time of match, when one old thing is immediately now a whole new thing.

You are wrong and I can demonstrate this.
At this point I am begging you to pretend that whatever god concept you desire and whatever creation story you desire is assumed to be true just so we can then discuss evolution. Therefore it is now demonstrated to you that evolution can allow for creation. Repeating incorrect statements is not helping you here.

That is scientifically and observably not possible,

And yet I did it!

and is why the ideological evolutionist goes apoplectic over a simple demand to prove such a thing is possible without creation.

Now I must laugh at you again! I am begging you to assume whatever creation story you desire, which is the opposite of getting upset.

Not only does the fossil record never satisfy the necessary incremental demand of evolution, but there's not a single point in time, where the 'evolved' match is seen.

Please provide me with the exact date that Latin became Italian.
Please provide me with the exact date that Latin became Spanish.
What you can't?!?! Then by your own logic, Latin did not evolve into these other languages. Your thinking is obviously flawed and must be rejected until fixed.

I asked you to stop asking for proof when discussing doing science

Spoken like a true ideologue.

Readers, it is painfully obvious that this poster is being willfully ignorant (continues to ask for proof when doing science, which ironically is something an actual ideologue would do). I argue that the inability to understand 'proof' in science is a defense mechanism in place in order to maintain a preconceived religious belief.

Spoken like a true ideologue again.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

No wonder they call the Bible a myth, when their own book is just imaginary ideas...

This is just fantasy on your part. I'm willing to grant whatever god/creation story you would like to presuppose which is not to call it myth.

Abiogenesis: life begins from inorganic matter. Evolutionary abiogenesis: the naturally changing process by which life begins from inorganic matter.

Genesis: Life begins from nothing naturally existing. Evolutionary genesis: No such thing.

Not in this thread. In this thread I will grant you whatever god concept and whatever creation story you would like, just so we can then discuss how population of animals change. You don't want to allow for any god creating anything it seems, which is very odd to me.

I beg you to pick a god concept and creation story for us to assume that started first life so we can then discuss what might have taken place afterwards.