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 #548]

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.

Theorizing isn't just guessing.


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

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

Arguing against a snake using human language argues against snakes being humans.

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.

You have no proof that the same conditions didn't produce the same result more than once.

See? I can do it too.

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.

SETI is a generic acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Scientists doing SETI experiments are looking for proof " not merely of life elsewhere " but of intelligent beings in other star systems.
SETI Research https://share.google/FpurUlybUZEDZmFrQ

Nothing about "proving" the possibility of natural selection.

[RBD]

'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.

Reminded of our body's nature. For those whose body is all there is in life, dumping is all they have.

Every time we take a thought for more than this life, we're reminded of our spiritual nature, apart from the animal kingdom.

[RBD]

[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.

Exactly. Neither is their proof of a state of hot gas and dust before hand.

Wnd without creation, the universe is eternal without beginning. Which would have to included life without beginning, and intelligent life, since matter, life, and intelligence now exist.

Without creation, the pagan theology of eternal universal life and deism is necessary. The primordial soup theorized by evolutionists, was a living intelligent being: the primordial deities of pagan theology.

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.

True. The Big Bang and evolution of life without creation, is the modern scientific explanation for pagan universal theology.

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.

This is false by the natural fact of death on earth.

Since natural law does not allow something to become nothing, then without creation, there always was matter, life, and intelligent being, and always shall be, no matter the existing state.

If life and intelligence becomes nothing at any time, then so does matter, and therefore they must have a beginning, which can only be by creation.

[RBD]

[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.

Exactly. It's especially problematic when it means that all matter, life, and intelligent being, must also be everlasting without beginning.

That is the old pagan theology of universal life and deism, where the primordial gods are called 'soup' by modern evolutionists.

The fact is that either the pagans were correct, or creation is correct. There is no 3rd option. Especially not by evolution, that demands something to always existing, in order to evolve.

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.

Exactly, the same for belief in creation, until either is factually proven in nature.

However, either pagan deism or creation will be proven to all intelligent beings on earth, after death. Nothing existing can cease to exist. If life and intelligence are only a natural state like matter, then life and intelligence is eternal as matter, no matter our present state of being.

However, what you are truly arguing for is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, which asserts that only natural causes exist.

And exist forever without beginning nor ending. Which includes existing life and intelligence, and so once again, the pagan theology of the universal deism, where the universe is god.

Evolutionists are only confirming old pagan theology, by seeking to replace creation with evolution, and God with the universe. Many can try to call themselves atheists without a Creator, but they cannot call themselves nonpagans, without the universal deity, and natural Prime Mover.

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.

Exactly again. Nothing can explain existence of matter, life, and intelligent being, without creation, other than a pseudo-scientific principle of the universal being.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #541]


Exactly again. Nothing can explain existence of matter, life, and intelligent being, without creation, other than a pseudo-scientific principle of the universal being.

^^^ RBD, the RUNAWAY from my posts because he couldn't refute them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath ..... LOL!

Not to embarrass you all at once, I will only give you snippets of your serial killer God Jesus' CREATION, where you can again thank me later.


DEPLORABLE AND SICKENING CREATION NARRATIVE NUMBER ONE!

The alternative to evolution is your embarrassing stance to defend the Bible's Creation narratives at your laughable expense in front of the Atheist membership.

Therefore, where Adam and Eve had 3 sons, Cain, Able, and Seth, now, take a deep breath in what that biblical axiom implies! READY? It implies that the fact that to populate the world with Jesus being God of his Jewish Creation, Adam, plus his three sons, had to be a part of impregnating their own mother Eve!!! Ewwwwwww....... can you spell NCESTUOUS IMPREGNATION of Eve? Sure you can .... LOL!

Jewish Christianity deplorably started with INCEST between family members, where Eve's life ambition was to be able to sit up!


This biblical axiom shows in how STUPID the Christian God was in allowing this to happen in the first place! But, what did we expect from the primitive and barbaric Bronze and Iron Age Bible to begin with ....... Priceless!



RBD, don't worry, I have more Creation FACTS to embarrass you and your Faith even further ........... stay tuned and don't RUN AWAY this time like you had to do last time for obvious reasons, okay? Thanking you in advance.



.

[RBD]

[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 evolution forbids extinction, then the burden of proof is on evolution of the species.

Creation does not forbid extinction of the species on earth, no more than it forbids physical death.

If Archaeopteryx could produce only the same through all epochs, they should still be here reproducing Archaeopteryx today-

So, evolution forbids extinction? Then evolution not only does not account for the beginning of a species, but also the end of the species.

Evolution is only a theoretical process without beginning, nor ending.

---while evolution handily explains how a branch of reptiles would continue to evolve from Archaeopteryx and now be birds.

Evolution always has an explanation in hand, for every process that is never proven in fact, but I've never heard how a supposedly 'transitory' species is not a species at all. So, Archaeopteryx is not actually extinct, but lives on in the birds of the air...

Evolution of life and species is truly a science of theory, including spiritual transplantation...

Same with Hyracotherium. If they were spontaneously created, they should still be here continuing Hyracotherium now.

There's no Hyracotherium today, because the species is extinct. So is the Dodo bird, which was a bird, and still would be if it lived today.

Evolution provides a logical answer as to why there are now horses instead of Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus and Pliohippus.

Since evolution forbids extinction of the species, then they aren't extinct, nor nonexistent, but carry on in the horses of today, in spirit if not in fact...

If the Creator wanted us to have a sign that we were spontaneously created and didn't evolve along with the great apes,

His written words are better than hand signals.

The unerring Bible written by so many men over so much time, is physical proof that the Author can reasonably be who they say He is: The Lord God and Creator of all things.

And the evidence demand of creation is already supplied: Life and species on earth. Especially the evidence of man created in the image of God, with spiritual intelligence and power of faith, apart from the animal kingdom. (That continues true even if people misuse their Spirit-given intelligence...)

The evolutionary demand remains unproven for the continuous incremental evidence, that could dismiss creation. If anyone is objects to meeting that demand, then they should dismiss the theoretical effort to dismiss creation.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #548]

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.

Theorizing isn't just guessing.

Ok, it's a fairly well-educated hypothetical theory for another hypothetical result, not just guessing.

But theory alone sure isn't proving anything.

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

Arguing against a snake using human language argues against snakes being humans.

Ok. Since not speaking human language, means animals aren't humans. Then not speaking animal language, means humans aren't animals.

Unless of course, it's just all ideological theorizing and guesswork...Which is never consistent, but always playing dodgeball.

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.

You have no proof that the same conditions didn't produce the same result more than once.

See? I can do it too.

Yes, you certainly can. And I agree. It means proving it happened at least once ought be even easier. And since cyclic nature is not limited to once or twice, but in an eternal universe, many many times, then no proof of just once, is more proof of never at all.

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.

SETI is a generic acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Scientists doing SETI experiments are looking for proof " not merely of life elsewhere " but of intelligent beings in other star systems.
SETI Research https://share.google/FpurUlybUZEDZmFrQ

Oh, you mean not animals, but only intelligent beings like humans...

Nothing about "proving" the possibility of natural selection.

Nothing in the brochure, but certainly in the demand of natural selection in an eternal universe...

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #552]

Yet you have doctor visits cause you need your biological brain to live. If you truly thought you didn't need your animal body to live you wouldn't protect it so or nourish it. But it sure feels good to take comfort in a magical way to ease insecurities about death simply by believing in myths!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #556]

If evolution forbids extinction, then the burden of proof is on evolution of the species.

Evolution doesn't forbid extinction. That's why Archaeopteryx and Hyracotherium aren't here anymore.

Creation does not forbid extinction of the species on earth, no more than it forbids physical death.

If a spontaneously created species is going to be spontaneously wiped out, why create it in the first place?

Evolution always has an explanation in hand, for every process that is never proven in fact, but I've never heard how a supposedly 'transitory' species is not a species at all. So, Archaeopteryx is not actually extinct, but lives on in the birds of the air...

Archaeopteryx had some of the reptilian features of its ancestors which modern birds don't have.

There's no Hyracotherium today, because the species is extinct.

Why? Why spontaneously create it only to do away with it?

Now, if it left equine descendents.....that explains where it went.


If the Creator wanted us to have a sign that we were spontaneously created and didn't evolve along with the great apes,

His written words are better than hand signals.

Isn't Nu Kua fashioning the first humans from clay better than hand signals?

The unerring Bible written by so many men over so much time, is physical proof that the Author can reasonably be who they say He is: The Lord God and Creator of all things.

You begin with the conclusion you want to reach----that the Bible is "unerring". Circular thinking.

And the evidence demand of creation is already supplied: Life and species on earth. Especially the evidence of man created in the image of God, with spiritual intelligence and power of faith, apart from the animal kingdom. (That continues true even if people misuse their Spirit-given intelligence...)

How do you know that our spiritual intelligence didn't evolve along with our animal bodies?

The evolutionary demand remains unproven

A snake's ability to use human language remains unproven.....and there's a lot more evidence of evolution.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #557]

Ok, it's a fairly well-educated hypothetical theory for another hypothetical result, not just guessing.

But theory alone sure isn't proving anything.

Believing what a book says because the book says it isn't proving anything.

Since not speaking human language, means animals aren't humans. Then not speaking animal language, means humans aren't animals.

Not speaking other animal language means that humans aren't other animals. A dog and a cat are both animals even though the dog doesn't mew and the cat doesn't bark.

It means proving it happened at least once ought be even easier. And since cyclic nature is not limited to once or twice, but in an eternal universe, many many times, then no proof of just once, is more proof of never at all.

No proof that life arose "just once" is proof that it never arose at all? That has to be the granddaddy of all nonsequiturs.


SETI is a generic acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Scientists doing SETI experiments are looking for proof " not merely of life elsewhere " but of intelligent beings in other star systems.
SETI Research https://share.google/FpurUlybUZEDZmFrQ

Oh, you mean not animals, but only intelligent beings like humans...

I mean intelligent animals.


Nothing about "proving" the possibility of natural selection.

Nothing in the brochure, but certainly in the demand of natural selection in an eternal universe...

Oh, you mean adherence to the scientific method rather than to a preferred sectarian text...