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 #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.

When anyone says animals are people, and can act immorally, then they are consistent with humans being animals, and animals can act morally.

Until then, it's just ideology based upon unproven theory, states as fact.

[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.

When anyone says animals are people, and can act immorally, then they are consistent with humans being animals, and animals can act morally.

Until then, it's just ideology based upon unproven theory, states as fact.

Please demonstrate P1) and/or P2 false. Otherwise, you have been completely cooked in your own topic.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #523]

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.

You're the only one calling abiogenesis an "evolutionary" process.

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.

But evergreens and ash were able to develop from earlier plants. Thus, your argument here is just the old "ain't-never-seen-no-fish-give-birth-to-no-monkey" strawman again.

There is no 'ancient' apple-orange tree, nor fish-bird animal. Not in any fossil record nor practical experiment.

Here again, apple trees and orange trees were able to develop from earlier plants.

But even if there were an ancient "apple-orange tree", your denial bias against evolution would merely dismiss it as a "hybrid"----as you do the reptile--->bird Archaeopteryx.

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.

We can make some fairly well-educated assumptions as to what it was like----though it wouldn't have produced a snake which could use human language.

A theory that also says it could only happen once by chance.

The same conditions could have produced life in various locations.

Creation is the sensible explanation for something only happening once in the whole natural universe.

What are you assuming has happened only once in the whole natural universe? The rise of biological life? That would be a farfetched assumption, given how little of the natural universe we've explored.


"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

Neither is a story of a snake with human language, but at least the former has a reasonable basis.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #524]

Humans are not animals, because natural bodies are not all the life there is.

There's no "proof" of this, so----technically----this is what you would label ideology.


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.

The Roman Catholic presenter in the fused chromosome video recognizes himself as an animal, but does not deny that he has spiritual intelligence, so you're obviously wrong.

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

Are you familiar with the old saying, "All fishermen are liars, but not all liars are fishermen"?

All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.

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

....."and a horse has no udder, and a cow can't whinny, and up is down and sideways is straight ahead....."
---the Blind Man

Neanderthal were human. They had Neanderthal DNA.
Homo Sapiens are human. We have Homo Sapiens DNA.
Many of us have Homo Sapiens human DNA and Neanderthal human DNA.
It's as simple as that.

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.

Just another primate with similar physical characteristics of human people.

Another primate that ritually buried its dead.

And wished them a better afterlife.

Then they were human.


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", 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.

You conveniently forget the hard science of Neanderthal placing stones in graves for the dead to rest their heads on and keeping animal bones in ritualized positions. That is hardly "animals instinctively cleansing the territory of dead carcasses".

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.

I can't speak to that, since I don't deny an afterlife.

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

Do you say that Neanderthal were less than human, despite their undeniably human behavior?

[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?

A fair challenge, but no. It's a recording of a one event, the same as with the mule talking to the prophet. It's not a theory that animals talk. Nor is anyone trying to prove it by factual evidence. Especially not stating it as fact.

'Humans are animals' is an ideology of an unproven theory, not an isolated recorded event. And, it's stated as fact for all people.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #529]

"People" aren't arguing about what makes a primate----

Ideological people are arguing about what makes a person a primate.

The word "ideological" is like a security blanket to you.

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?

False dilemma. Demonstrate that humans can't be spiritual primates.


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.

Other primates are living creatures with real feelings. You have to determine for yourself whether or not you believe that makes them "people".

Incidentally, orangutans are known to the humans who share their habitat as "people of the forest".

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

I'm arguing for evolution.


Why were male humans created with nipples?

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

You're not answering the question.

Or, only people would ask, not primates.

You're still not answering the question.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #78]

And again, animals don't 'think' about negotiating physical problems, when they do things to survive and gain a natural advantage.

Chimp Gathers Stones for "Premeditated" Attacks on Zoo Visitors | Discover Magazine https://share.google/qZu4EQguNpJKHxdv1

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #415]

Thank you for making my point!! Believing that something was made from nothing is outside of realm of science. Science can only research cause-and-effect relationships or order to disorder.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #416]

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.

That is my point; nothing can come from a philosophical nothing. However, the laws of physics stop at the edge of this universe. Because the laws of physics stop at the edge of this universe, logic as we know it also stops at the edge of this universe. We are tied to the universe in which we live, never being able to look outside. Does spatial exclusivity exist outside of this universe? Do matter and energy even exist outside of this universe?

Expansion seems to indicate that this universe was created. Believers in methodological naturalism would suggest that some sort of matter would exist outside of this universe. However, that would not be logical because matter exists because of the physical laws in this universe and would seem to necessitate a cause that is also part of the laws of this universe. The burden of proof is on the one who believes that science can peer past the edge of the universe into a place where the physical laws of this universe do not exist.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #415]

Thank you for making my point!! Believing that something was made from nothing is outside of realm of science. Science can only research cause-and-effect relationships or order to disorder.

I'd love to argue with you, but I have no idea what you're talking about. It's like claiming that fractions are outside the realm of mathematics or islands are outside the realm of geography; it's obvious that you're wrong, but I've no idea which of the myriad possible misunderstandings might be responsible. Throw me a bone, here.