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 #541]
So you believe the universe is eternal. An eternal universe in a methodological naturalistic belief system is very problematic.

No, there is insufficient evidence available at this point to warrant a confident belief in any positive claim about the universe being eternal or not.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #541]
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.

Those are proposed hypotheses, not beliefs. If any of those hypotheses are unfalsifiable at this point, then there is no point in debating them.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #541]
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.

I was not arguing for metaphysical naturalism but merely clarifying that methodological naturalism does not require a lack of belief in the supernatural. The reason supernatural claims are excluded under methodological naturalism is because they are not testable, not because of a requirement to only believe in natural causes. In fact any proposed unfalsifiable natural cause would necessarily be excluded under methodological naturalism for the same reason. So, your objection is invalid.

[RBD]

[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!

If you truly believe you need your animal body to live at all, you would take no comfort in death at all, but prolong it as along as possible, no matter the cost, pain, and suffering to yourself, or others:

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Nourishment and medical help is not to stop death at all, but only to ease pain and suffering beforehand.

[RBD]

[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.

You're being confusing.

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?[/quote]
Natural creation is not created to live forever. That's the Creator's choice, that people have been questioning from the beginning. Not animals.

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.

I see. 'Evolutionary' metamorphosis. A confused philosophical effort to explain why all supposed intermediary species, are all extinct.

The question is why? Why are none of them still here to show the evolutionary pattern...Including all the missing ones to prove an evolutionary process.

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.

The same for those saying the Bible is lying about the Creator. The fact of so many people like you trying to prove error in the Bible, is proof that inerrancy proves it can be true.

The proof is made known by the Book itself. Which is something physical we can see, read, and lay our hands on, to prove whether all the writers over all the time are reporting the truth, or erring with lies.

1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

The fact that so many people like you trying to prove error in the Bible, is proof that inerrancy proves it can be true about the Creator. I was once an honest critic, now I'm convinced it's true, and remain that way even more so, every time a possible error is disproven by a possible explanation. Still being object about it, I still enjoy the challenge.

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 same way I know evolution of the body is not proven.

I also see how intelligence is dumbed down by ideological belief in something unproven, speaking as though it were fact. Everyone of your arguments are circular by conceiving yourself that unproven evolutionary theory is a fact. You never say 'if'. You no longer have the intelligent compacity to conceive the possibility of anything else.

And since it's not based upon fact alone, like gravity, then there's another reason for it. And I doubt it's out of honoring all your hominid ancestors 'metamorphizing' into you.

The evolutionary demand remains unproven

A snake's ability to use human language remains unproven...

I know, animals are not humans, because humans are not animals.

..and there's a lot more evidence of evolution.

I've seen a lot of present physical and biological similarities-studies, that don't match humans with any animals. As well as several gaping examples of isolated species, that could have been been created after their own kind.

When you produce the complete fossil record of an evolutionary process from matching one species to matching another, so that creation is not an explanation for them, then I can believe what I see and could touch.

Otherwise, I continue to believe what I see and touch in the Bible, as unerring truth of all things written therein, beginning with the Creator creating the heaven and the earth... And man in His image.

You can continue to do homage to all your primate ancestors metamorphing into you...Afterall, they gave their all just so you could talk about them. Since they've metamorphized into you, maybe they know and hear you? Some pagans believe in ancestral spirits living on within them, and so that must include all the many ancestral primates of past days gone by, if evolution is ever proven to dismiss any creation.

[RBD]

[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.

When the Book says nothing proven untrue, then it can be believed.

Far more than a theory never producing the necessary evidence to prove it's own hypothesis. I.e. you believe in evolutionary theory, because it's theorized against creation.

So far you've avoided evolutionary theory's own demand for a completed fossil record, which is in order to replace creation of the species as an explanation. You can object to the demand, but until it's completely satisfied, then it's theorized purpose is not fulfilled in ruling out creation.

You're isolated examples do not prove speciation in detail, and so do not replace creation of their species. There was a bird-like reptile and fish-like mammal on earth. Great. The Creator is inventive.

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.

And yet, animals are dogs and cats.

If humans are another animal, like dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans, like dogs and cats.

Like all unproven ideologies, 'humans are animals' fails, by denying animals are people.

Dogs and cats are animals, and animals are dogs and cats. If people are animals like dogs and cats, then animals are people like dogs and cats.

You're fellow ideologues, that are more honest than you, are seeking to have dogs and cats legally declared people...

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.

Only by the dishonest ideologues, that remove the sequitur. Arose by evolution...

You now prove your failed arguments, by forsaking any pretense of honesty.

At this point, I'll only entertain any response you may have to the origin of evolutionary theory, and it's own demand for evidence beyond doubt: To replace creation of the species, by a completed fossil record matching one species, that evolves in detail to match a different species...

Until then, the archaeopteryx and amublocetus are interesting creations of animal species...

[RBD]

"No, there is insufficient evidence available at this point to warrant a confident belief in any positive claim about the universe being eternal or not."

Since this is about evolutionary theory, then the positive claim of an eternal universe, is necessary.

This one of the problems of theoretical evolutionists: They don't want to acknowledge their confirmation of pagan universalism. An unending universe without beginning, that without creation, always includes all matter, life, and intelligence. What they called the primordial deities, the evolutionists call 'soup'.

Evolution by definition demands existing substance to evolve, which forbids creation. This is not surprising, since the theoretical purpose of evolution, is to replace creation of the universe, life, and the species. And especially man created in the image of God with spiritual intelligence, set apart from the natural universe, and all animals on earth.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #563]



.
RBD, THE NUMBER ONE RUNAWAY FROM POSTS THAT MAKE HIM THE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL!

I am truly sorry that you are so embarrassed about your Jewish Bible relative to the alternative to Evolution, which is your laughable and deplorable Creation narratives, where you once again had to RUN AWAY from my start to this topic in my post #555 within your thread herein!!!

Remember when I told you that I had to start over with your Biblical Ignorance again because there were too many posts of mine that you literally RAN AWAY FROM in front of the membership where it was hard to keep track of all of them? Remember?

Therefore, I have "Started Over" with you again with my post #555 that you are sheepishly HIDING FROM, and within your own thread, where others that will be directed to you as well that will be forthcoming pertaining to your laughable Creation Story.



RBD, Seriously, the only thing that I can assume at your embarrassment, is that you cannot begin to address my said posts because of their biblical FACTS, that you have probably never seen before in the first place. And, in addition, maybe you want to be known for something in this esteemed Religion forum, therefore you want to be known for being the number one runaway from Atheists posts because you do not have the intellect to address their biblical FACTS! ........ LOL!


Yes, the Atheist knows first hand that there will ALWAYS be a pseudo-christian like "RBD" in a Religion Discussion Forum that will be the number one RUNAWAY from biblical axioms that the Atheists present to them!.


RBD, CAN YOU AT LEAST TELL THE MEMBERSHIP IN WHAT "RUNNING AWAY SHOES" YOU WEAR, ARE THEY ADIDAS, CONVERSE, NIKE, OR .........?




.

[RBD]

Because evolution is not a science organically produced by existing evidence, like gravity, it's own theorized purpose to replace creation, becomes it's own worst enemy to prove: A completed fossil record matching one species evolving to match different species. And not just a different similar species, but a different species altogether, that can no longer breed with the 'cast aside' parent species.

Therefore, the demand of completely detailed evidence, is necessitated by it's own theoretical purpose: to replace, not supplement, creation as an explanation for the species. I.e. the fossil record must therefore incrementally prove beyond doubt, that creation had any hand in it. As in court, any doubt remaining about the charge, dismisses the charge as unproven. Afterall, the whole case originates by the charge. No charge, no case, no need to prove or disprove anything.

Therefore, so long as creation can still explain any species on earth, then speciation continues to fail to prove itself beyond doubt. And so, the theory itself falls short of it's own purpose. I.e. limited evidence only suggesting a possible evolutionary process, fails to disprove creation. The original charge is against creation of the species, not a possible accompaniment of speciation after creation.

And so, such isolated examples of a bird-like reptile, and fish-like mammal, can still be explained by creation. Without the necessary intervening links of an evolutionary chain, then they aren't proven links at all, but only interesting examples of the Creator's vivid imagination. And when those links are demanded, it's not by critics, but by evolutionary theory itself. 'Possibilities' themselves do not satisfy the theory's own demand, to replace creation as any an explanation for life and the species. Nor are possible theories about 'why' complete fossil links, are not yet found. The theory's own charge against creation, demands more than possibilities and excuses for lack of evidence beyond doubt.

The Darwinian dilemma continues to frustrate some evolutionary theorists against a continued demand for the whole chain by links, as though critics are the source not their own theory. The self-defeating demand of the theory, once again, is it's own original purpose: To replace creation of life and species, not accompany it.

And so, the theory of speciation still has it's own proving to do, that must be more than isolated variations of species, in order to prove they are not created. If such evidence is not necessary to some evolutionary theorists, then they are promoting an new creation-evolution theory of their own.

And the evolutionary theorists that resent such necessary demand of record, and yet want to believe it's proven 'enough' to reject creation, only prove they are ideologues more than theorists, They just want to believe in any theory other than creation, so they can reject, in their own minds, creation of life, the species, and man in God's own image.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #564]




And especially man created in the image of God with spiritual intelligence, set apart from the natural universe, and all animals on earth.

^^^RBD, the Number One Runaway from Atheists disturbing posts to him!

In addressing your statement in your response window above, you were referring to this passage in Genesis 1:26:

1. " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Therefore, since man has a penis, and shytes and pees, and since your Jewish GodS ARE IN A PLURAL FORM said they made man in their image and likeness, whereas does this mean that your godS have a penis and shytes and pees as well, has the same internal organs that man has, and has the urge for sex in heaven?

EXPLAIN:



2. Furthermore, the gods in Genesis 1:26 use the plural form of their existence which is at least 2 of them to begin with, therefore how many of these gods do you think were in their biblically described 1400 square mile Heaven to begin with?

EXPLAIN:



RBD; THE MEMBERSHIP IS WATCHING TO SEE IF YOUR "MO" ONCE AGAIN RUNS AWAY FROM SIMPLE BIBLICAL QUESTIONS FROM ME!.



.

[RBD]

The ideological side of evolutionary theory of speciation, specifically primate-human evolution, is the modern 'humans are animals' movement. Their personal ideology is shown by their personal unwillingness to conclude animals are people.

They say that animals not using human language, only proves that animals are not humans, not that humans are not animals, since humans are not using animal language. They then ideologue circles the argument, by saying humans use another animal language, than all other animals. Such as dogs using an animal language than other animals. And yet, animals are still dogs, but not humans. I.e. dogs are animals using their own animal language, and animals are dogs. But humans are animals using their own animal language, and yet animals are not humans.

The same error is made for humans not breeding with any primate, and so humans cannot be a primate. Once again, they ideologically say humans don't breed with other primates, the same as gorillas don't breed with other primates, and both humans and gorillas are still primates. But then it's the same contradiction: Primates are gorillas, while not breeding with other primates, and yet primates are not people, while not breeding with 'other' primates.

The fact is that since an animal is any animal, then so is any dog, primate, and human animal. If an animal is not a dog, primate, or human, then a dog, primate, or human is not any animal. No one can say humans are animals, and yet animals are not people, unless they also say there are animals, that are not animals at all. Since dog and primates are animals, and animals are dogs and primates, then animals are human people, if humans are animals. If any animal is not a person, then a person can't be any animal.

It's interesting how the humans are animals ideological movement, does have it's own honest members: They are not seeking to prove animals are people, by having their dogs legally declared people too.

Dogs and cats may be family too, but they are not people too, because people are not animals like dogs and cats. We see here how the theory of speciation, whose original purpose is to reject any creation of life, the specie, and man in God's image, is the source for the same kind of ideological confusion in their own parts of modern society, where born males seek to be legally declared females...

[RBD]

There's also the problem if scientific studies of human-primate similarities, that never match.

Physically, biologically, genetically, etc... we know that people are similar to primates, which is nothing new, since man has always physically been like all animals on earth, and certain more similar apes that to elephants. The Bible declares the truth of all physical bodies on earth being made of the same stuff:

Isa 40:6The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Therefore, all the similarities studies are interesting, and even useful to some degree, but they are never exactly match humans with primates, the same way the theory itself never supplies the necessary exactly completed fossil record of any species, incrementally evolving from one parent species, into another different species, that no longer breeds the parent. Similarities are still only possibilities, that never prove a match, which is not sufficient to evolution's own theorized purpose: to replace creation.

Therefore, when anyone argues about an almost match between human and primate chromosomes, short by one, then it can still be said, that man is created with one less chromosome than all primates, which makes all the difference between all humans and primates. Which biologically supports the fact, that all men are created with the spiritual intelligence, that no animal has.