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...)

[Clownboat]

There is no proof that humans evolved from primates.

RDB, should there be proof or should there not be proof?

Spoken like a true ideologue, where the only proof is needed in the mind.

Yes, readers... this was the actual response!

RDB, should there be proof that humans evolved from primates or have you finally realized that if we consider things to be proven, then we cannot amend them if a better explanation is ever found? The theory of evolution should never be considered as proven in order to avoid the dogma above that you (a religious person) continue to ask for. Therefore, proof is for math and whiskey and not for when doing the method we call science.

Again, proof is for math and whiskey

And anything stated as a fact.

No, math and whiskey! Proof is avoided when doing science because then whatever has been 'proven' cannot be challenged and doing science is all about challenging to see if hypothesize and theories hold up. Therefore you are shown to be incorrect.

When I say God created the heavens and the earth, and man in His image, I state my faith. I do not state it as a proven fact.

Of course you don't. As you are learning, proof is for math and whiskey and is certainly not going to be involved when discussing unfalsifiable faith claims like the ones you make.

When someone says that humans are animals, and evolved from primates, as a belief, then we are on the same page.

False and demonstrably so.
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.

Which part of this definition do you reject?

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

This has already been debunked and requires being at war with the English language. Did you find some part of the definition of what an animal is that you take issue with?

There is proof that human language, germs, and gravity exists. Not humans evolving from primates.

RDB... should there be PROOF that humans evolved from primates

Exactly. Until then, only ideologues declare humans are animals, and evolved from apes...

Readers... notice the inability to answer the question once again. It would seem that someone's ideologies are getting in there way.

<snipped some off topic things about what RDB thinks the scientific method is for>

Scientific method can also prove spiritual truth by practical fact: Man is separated apart from the animal kingdom by created spiritual intelligence. Only ideologues never 'arrive' at that truth, because they don't face facts.

I will acknowledge that you have faith in whatever you claim to have faith in. Do you not see just how uninteresting faith claims are, yet that is all you seem to have.

Suggested to be possible. Only ideologues suggest a possibility makes it real. The possibility is real, but only proven fact makes it real.

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.

There are facts, believers in facts, disbelievers in facts, and then there are ideologues whose facts are only in their minds...

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

[Clownboat]

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...

This once again fails to account for the Neanderthal DNA that is found in most humans. Why do you continue to fail to account for the things presented to you?

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.

This fails to address that Neanderthals were human and how they interbred with Homo sapiens. Why do you continue to fail to account for the things presented to you?

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

This once again fails to account for the Neanderthal DNA that is found in most humans. Why do you continue to fail to account for the things presented to you?

What you say is silly because humans are animals.

Spoken like a true ideologue, again.

Let's test your words.

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.

What part of this definition for 'animal' do you take issue with?

Otherwise, 'humans are animals' ideologues are only ideologues, who ideologically argue against their own creative spiritual intelligence.

Let's test your words.

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.

What part of this definition for 'animal' do you take issue with?

The argument is weak, because no factual proof is yet given.

Let's see what you have learned. When doing science, should the theory of evolution be considered proven or should a proven status be avoided?

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.

I hear your claim, now is the time to show that you speak the truth.

<snipped some scripture verses for not being authoritative>

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #503]

The only difference is between how life begins, and how life evolves. Evolution must account for both, else there's no beginning of life by evolution, but only creation of life, with theoretical evolution of life following .

Evolution doesn't have to account for abiogenesis because abiogenesis is the beginning of life and evolution is the development of life.

Then tell the evolutionists trying to account for beginning of life by abiogenesis through an evolutionary process.

Therefore, the evolution of the species of tree life must be accounted for alongside the evolution of animal species. Refusal to do so, is another admission, that evolution is ideologically selective, and not science of natural selection of all life.

https://share.google/bUCmg9W6R03avIDQk

Changes within a species of tree to allow for environmental changes, is not a tree species changing into a different kind of tree. The evergreen seed can produce types of evergreens, but not any type of ash.

A species' ability to naturally adapt to change and continue on earth, as the same species, is not the theorized speciation of animals and trees, that change into a different species altogether.

No seed on earth, whether animal or tree, ever changes naturally nor artificially into another animal or tree, whose seed no longer produces after it's former kind. It's never proven that an ancestor can produce at any time, 2 different animals or tree that cannot interbreed. There is no 'ancient' apple-orange tree, nor fish-bird animal. Not in any fossil record nor practical experiment.

And yet, if such a random natural event of abiogenesis takes place, then why is it not repeated? Why doesn't the chance event not chance to occur again? Why only billions of years ago, where it can never be proven? Why not by chance to be observed?

The environmental conditions on early Earth were vastly different from the conditions present now.

Which is only theoretical.

There is no evidence of it having existed on earth. Any artificial experiments have never produced the same soup, and especially not any life from it. Another hypothetical theory for another hypothetical result. A theory that also says it could only happen once by chance.

The chance of such a theoretical soup producing by chance natural life, is astronomical in itself, but the chance of only occurring once and not by chance again? Not possible. In the endless universe without beginning, that is necessary to rule out creation, cannot possibly naturally produce something by chance, only once.

Creation is the sensible explanation for something only happening once in the whole natural universe. Just as with incremental evidence necessary for speciation, there would have to be many repetitions of evolving life, to rule out creation.

"The variety of life on Earth is widely considered to have evolved from a single common ancestor, but it is possible that basic organisms emerged more than once, leading to multiple trees of life."
https://share.google/iClLVqxKWL7tFKn1k

Once again, 'widely considered' is not factual proof, but only consensus of theory. Another hallmark of an artificially propped up theory, is consensus en lieu of fact.

And who widely accepts it? Well, evolutionists of course. And they're acceptance is all that's necessary to keep the theory sustainable.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #504]

Personal ideology is humans are animals, but animals are not people. Or, are humans not people?

A definition of "animal" was given and humans fit that definition physically.

Agreed. Now you're being factually accurate, which only takes natural observation. Human bodies fit the definition of all natural animals on earth.

Humans are not animals, because natural bodies are not all the life there is. Only humans fit the definition of spiritually intelligent life, not animals.

What you're kicking against is the notion that humans are merely animals, which I myself am not putting forward.

Self contradictive, since humans must deny being spiritually and intelligently separate from all animals, in order to be animals.

Humans can only be animals, if humans are only animals... and animals are humans.

Humans aren't less human just because humans and "animals" evolved in the same way.

Humans aren't less human, just because some humans say they are animals evolving with animals.

In any case, humans are less human, if humans are animals, and animals are not human. Only if animals are human, can humans be animals, and not less human.

Ideology always twists itself into an unintelligible knot.

Neanderthal were not Homo Sapiens; their remains tell us that.

Ok. There remains tell us that they were not human beings.

Their remains tell us that they weren't homo sapiens [modern humans]----NOT that they weren't human.

Humans can't be human and not human. Humans can't have human DNA and not be humans with human DNA.

Ancient humans wouldn't agree they weren't as human as today. Especially if any humans today preach humans are animals. Ancient humans would conclude they are less than human. Unless of course animals are humans too.

More ideological nonsense unravelling.

Just another primate with similar physical characteristics of human people.

Another primate that ritually buried its dead.

And wished them a better afterlife.

No one says animals don't have distant similar physical characteristics to human people, nor distantly similar treatment of dead animals. Only humans religiously bury or burn our dead, if possible. Animals are not human people with spiritual intelligence for religion.

I'm pointing out a human characteristic exhibited by Neanderthal [ritual burial] and you're trying to dismiss it as "distantly similar treatment of dead animals"

Not if they were human. They were wishing for a better afterlife...

, presumably because you don't want to acknowledge the hard scientific evidence that Neanderthal were human.

The hard science of animals instinctively cleansing the territory of dead carcasses, is not the human practice of burial ceremony for a better afterlife.

And humans that deny an afterlife, but there is only natural life, don't agree there is any less human, since there are only animals on earth. Nor are animals less than human.

Or, do you say animals are less than humans, because they are not human?

[RBD]

[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.

Nothing is proven by changing the argument. Human spiritual intelligence completely separates all humans from all animals. Proving it is daily and widely self-evident over all the earth.

Trying to disprove it is self-defeating nonsense, in trying to disprove it... which no animal can possibly do.

More ideological ditch digging, with humans trying to disprove they are not animals, by their own spiritual unintelligence, that no animal has.

[RBD]

[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?

Also mythical, to someone that doesn't believe it's possible, because they don't believe in spiritual power, which is possible.

Evolution ideologues first declare a natural event happened, that is not physically proven. And also by their ideology alone, they also declare a spiritual event cannot happen. It's by their ideology alone, that they argue what can and cannot happen.

[RBD]

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!


.

Make it soon. Been tired of waiting.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

You keep skipping:

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/or justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral acts.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. According to your own view, Genesis 1 is incorrect.

[RBD]

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----

Ideological people are arguing about what makes a person 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.

Human bodies do.

Ergo, humans are primates.

Ergo, humans are only primates, if humans are only physical bodies of primates.

If humans are not only primates, then humans are not only physical bodies, but are spiritual beings, not primates.

Are humans spiritual beings, not just primates?

You don't deny that humans are mammals, do you?

Is a mammal an animal? Is a mammal a human?

"Primate" is another catagory we fall into.

Ideological primate is a category you all fall into.

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.

So, primates are people, with smaller brains.

Thus, any creator who has intended us for loftier thoughts has seen fit to give us the evolutionary tools to handle them.

Any creator that is an evolutionist is not a creator. Evolutionary speciation is against creation.

So, primates are people, with less lofty thought.

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

Thus, any creator who has intended us for loftier thoughts...

You're the one arguing for lofty geranium-in-a-flowerpot creation.

Ideological confusion.

Why were male humans created with nipples?

Only primates with loftier thoughts would ask. Not primates with less lofty thoughts.

Or, only people would ask, not primates.

[RBD]

RDB, should there be proof that humans evolved from primates

If humans are an evolved primate, of course. Especially if claiming humans are evolved primates.

or have you finally realized that if we consider things to be proven, then we cannot amend them if a better explanation is ever found?

There are two other explanations for life. Pagan universal deism without beginning by creation, or beginning of the universe and life by creation of a Creator.

Evolutionists are modern pagan deists, replacing the deity with science.

The theory of evolution should never be considered as proven

So long as evolution's own demand of incremental evidence, is not proven.

in order to avoid the dogma above that you (a religious person) continue to ask for.

The dogma of evolution is it's own demanding proof of evidence.

Again, proof is for math and whiskey

And anything stated as a fact.

No, math and whiskey! Proof is avoided when doing science because then whatever has been 'proven' cannot be challenged[/quote]
Proven facts satisfying the theoretical demand, cannot be challenged, because they are proven facts .

When someone says that humans are animals, and evolved from primates, as a belief, then we are on the same page.

False and demonstrably so.
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.

Doing ideology is all about converting scientific fact into an unproven theory, as though the theory is proven.

Human bodies are biological as all natural bodies on earth. Humans are animals evolved with primates, is an unproven human ideology stated as a fact.

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

This has already been debunked and requires being at war with the English language.

Trying to debunk human spiritual intelligence apart from animals, requires being at war with oneself. Ideologues deny reality for the sake of unproven theory, stated as fact.