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...)

[bluegreenearth]

[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.

Expansion seems to indicate that the local presentation of our universe was previously more compact. We currently lack the technology to observe the conditions of the local universe prior to the inception of its expansion phase to test any claim about what caused it to expand. So, there is no justification to infer from its expansion that the local presentation of the universe was created.

As for methodological naturalism, it is not a religion requiring its followers to lack belief in supernatural claims but merely acknowledges the impossibility of ever discovering if those explanations are false or not. No quantity or quality of reasonably obtainable evidence will ever function to disprove those unfalsifiable ideas. Falsifiable naturalistic claims, on the other hand, are more likely to lend themselves for testing at some point where people can discover if they are false or not. So, it is not unjustified prejudice but simply a practical necessity that unfalsifiable claims are immediately excluded under methodological naturalism.

[Clownboat]

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

What you say here is not logical and the thought process doesn't follow from one point to the next. Perhaps you can un-messy this claim so it makes sense?

Are humans spiritual beings, not just primates?

Please provide a real example of a spiritual being so we can check to see if humans are such things.

[Clownboat]

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.

RDB, proof is to be avoided when doing science because to assume that something is proven does not allow for falsification. Science is all about falsifying claims, the theory explaining the fact that things evolve NEEDS to be falsifiable, lest people treat it like religious claims.

It has been demonstrated to you that humans are animals and that humans are primates. You can attempt to falsify any of the information we have provided that demonstrates these things if you can, but your continued denial is not respected.

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.

There are more than two available explanations, but would you please address the question that was actually asked of you? I bolded it for you.

The theory of evolution should never be considered as proven

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

No silly. Proof is to be avoided when doing science. I acknowledge that you are unable to learn this because you want science to be dogmatic like religion, but they just are not the same.

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

After all the educating we have tried to provide for RDB, they still think that science demands proof! Now they have added that it is some sort of dogma too! You can't make this stuff up.
I submit that this strawman is the best RDB can come up with in order to avoid challenges made to them.

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

Proven facts satisfying the theoretical demand, cannot be challenged, because they are proven facts .

This has nothing to do with the fact that when doing science, you falsify things, not try to prove them because then they cannot be challenged. Science is not like religion and that is where RDB is getting confused. They want science to be like religious thinking, but it's not.

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.

No it's not, please educate yourself about what ideology is if you insist on continuing to use the word. I feel you are trying to drag us down to your level to try to then beat us with experience.

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.

I supplied the definition for what an animals is (notice what RDB quote mined out of the reply, shame shame ) and asked where you took issue in order to demonstrate just how wrong you are. Your failure informs us that you are wrong and your unproven assertions must therefore be rejected.

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.

Please define what human spiritual intelligence is and supply your source so we can be confident that you are not making up words.

[Clownboat]

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

Let's once again attempt to test your words for accuracy and honesty. Please feel free to do the same with any claim I make.

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?

Readers, who here is the ideologist?

[Carnivalfaces]

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

Let's once again attempt to test your words for accuracy and honesty. Please feel free to do the same with any claim I make.

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?

Readers, who here is the ideologist?

I'd say the one denying biology. I mean, every time we take a dump we're reminded of our animal nature.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #541]

Expansion seems to indicate that the local presentation of our universe was previously more compact. We currently lack the technology to observe the conditions of the local universe prior to the inception of its expansion phase to test any claim about what caused it to expand. So, there is no justification to infer from its expansion that the local presentation of the universe was created.

So you believe the universe is eternal. An eternal universe in a methodological naturalistic belief system is very problematic.

As for methodological naturalism, it is not a religion requiring its followers to lack belief in supernatural claims but merely acknowledges the impossibility of ever discovering if those explanations are false or not. No quantity or quality of reasonably obtainable evidence will ever function to disprove those unfalsifiable ideas. Falsifiable naturalistic claims, on the other hand, are more likely to lend themselves for testing at some point where people can discover if they are false or not. So, it is not unjustified prejudice but simply a practical necessity that unfalsifiable claims are immediately excluded under methodological naturalism.

It is a methodological naturalistic belief that some form of matter exists outside of this universe, or one must believe in an eternal universe, which is also problematic. This is an unfalsifiable belief because the laws of physics of this universe do not extend outside of this universe, because they are wrapped up in the very nature of space itself. We do not even need to go back to creation to show the fallacy of the methodological belief system. Accreation is a methodological belief that cannot occur because of the meter barrier and the bounce barrier. Evolution of the galaxies is a methodological belief.

However, what you are truly arguing for is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, which asserts that only natural causes exist. You are not arguing for any type of neutral scientific principle but simply for something that fits your belief system. That is fine with me because your belief system cannot explain reality.

[RBD]

[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.

You're the one saying a natural gradual transition from one thing to another, is not 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.

Only if it's proven. Otherwise, it's just a theoretical ability, not a proven fact.

Thus, your argument here is just the old "ain't-never-seen-no-fish-give-birth-to-no-monkey" strawman again.

Thus, your argument is against the evolutionary process being proven.

And so, we agree. There is no fossil record of a fish reproducing something, that cannot reproduce a fish.

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.

Your denial bias against creation only dismisses it as a hybrid of the same species, or as an independently created species of it's own kind.

Your problem is you want to believe the theory of evolution is fact, without the inherent necessary evidence to prove it. Your objection is to the theory's own demanding definition of proof.

You ether fail or refuse to understand two critical things about evolutionary theory:
1. It's only an unproven theory, not an observable fact, like gravity. Unlike gravity, evolution is not organically produced from discovered evidence. It's a manufactured theory to replace creation. It's a theory in search of the facts to prove life and species is not by creation, but only by evolution.

2. Therefore, it's inherent demand is the consistent incremental stages, that are necessary to rule out creation. Mere 'suggestion' by isolated examples of hybrid, mutation, or 'oddball' species, is not enough to prove creation is not possible. The evidence must be abundantly clear, so that there can be no reasonable doubt made for creation.

Until then, the evolutionist can call archaeopteryx and ambulocetus possible links in an evolving process from reptile to bird, and mammal to whale. But so long as the remaining 'missing links' are not produced, then they can equally be called independently created species, producing after their own kind. Without the missing links, they aren't links.

Since the theory was manufactured to disprove creation of all species, including the oddballs, to then suggest that such oddballs prove the theory, is to make the theory it's own proof. Theorizing a possibility does not make it a fact.

The burden of proof is on evolutionary theory, to disprove creation. Creation already has it's own proof, like gravity: The fact of life and species on earth.
Since incrementally showing there is evolution of the species, in order to disprove there is creation of the species. Then to suggest that the incremental evidence is not necessary, only proves it's a manufactured theory, whose only purpose to argue against creation. It's just a pseudo-scientific theory against creation, that is argued by ideology alone, not by fact.

[RBD]

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----

Ok, it's a fairly well-educated hypothetical theory for another hypothetical result.

though it wouldn't have produced a snake which could use human language.

Arguing against animals using jhuman lagnuage, argues against humans being animals.

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

The same conditions could have produced life in various locations.

The same conditions must occur more than once, and produce the same result, to be by natural process. Otherwise, it can only be by creation.

A natural process not repeated in an unlimited universe, is not natural.

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?

Not assumed, but only known en lieu of being found elsewhere, or of the same process being repeated on earth.

That would be a farfetched assumption, given how little of the natural universe we've explored.

SETI was not just about proving ET life, but about proving life by natural selection is possible. Without ET's life by creation is only possible.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #416]



Expansion seems to indicate that this universe was created.


^^^ EarthScienceguy,

In your revealing quote above, you forgot to mention what allegedly created the universe that is approximately 7.7 BILLION light years in diameter?

Therefore, that entity is ....?

Awaiting a cogent answer, thanking you in advance.



.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #547]

It's only an unproven theory, not an observable fact, like gravity. Unlike gravity, evolution is not organically produced from discovered evidence. It's a manufactured theory to replace creation. It's a theory in search of the facts to prove life and species is not by creation, but only by evolution.

If you're going to argue against evolution, the burden of proof is on you to show why Archaeopteryx is no longer here. If Archaeopteryx could produce only the same through all epochs, they should still be here reproducing Archaeopteryx today----while evolution handily explains how a branch of reptiles would continue to evolve from Archaeopteryx and now be birds.

Same with Hyracotherium. If they were spontaneously created, they should still be here continuing Hyracotherium now. Evolution provides a logical answer as to why there are now horses instead of Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus and Pliohippus.


If the Creator wanted us to have a sign that we were spontaneously created and didn't evolve along with the great apes, why weren't we given 23 pairs of UNfused chromosomes? That would have been an undeniable sign, and we don't have it. From our fused chromosomes to our canine teeth to our second pair of hands----and even our male nipples----, our bodies are built like they evolved.