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 #564]

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.

I believe in evolutionary theory because of the evidence of it.

No problem. Non one says anyone can't believe evolution of the species. The only problem is people trying to claim it's completely proven. And I still believe in creation, because of the same evidence for it. I don't then go ideological, and claim creation is proven by the evidence. (The closest direct proof is for man created in God's image, by daily abundant direct evidence of man completely separate from all animals on earth, by spiritual intelligence and self-aware reasoning...)

However, for evolution of the species to be proven, it must be complete beyond doubt in the fossil record. And that is only because the theory is made in order to rule out any creation of the species.

This has not happened, and the evidence still allows for creation of each species. Until this is acknowledged by evolutionary believers, then they are only arguing against their own theory, when such evidence remains unsatisfied by the theory itself.

Until the record is completely incrementally linked from one species to another, then creation remains the reasonable explanation. Evolution of the species only remains a counter-theory to 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.

A completed fossil record isn't necessary to support evolution;

Exactly. You only believe it.

Until it's own standard of demand is completely found to prove it, then creation remains believable.

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.

As I suspected, with a complete fossil record you would still dismiss every evolutionary stage as an "isolated example".

You can believe whatever you like, including in evolutionary theory. But unless the complete fossil record is found, every isolated species can be created, not necessarily evolved from another entirely different species.

But at least you're now recognizing the several hundred year old Darwin dilemma: Since modern evolution of the species is only theorized as a counter to creation of the species, then without the completed evidence, it only remains a theorized counter to the age-old explanation of simple creation.

[RBD]

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

Another granddaddy of all nonsequiturs. Dogs aren't humans, cats or giraffes. Cats aren't humans, dogs or armadillos. Your attempts at satire aren't landing.

But animals are dogs and cats, and animals are not humans, therefore dogs and cats are animals, but not humans.

Unless you want to change your ideological attempts that aren't landing, and now say animals are people too.

[bluegreenearth]

You can believe whatever you like, including in evolutionary theory. But unless the complete fossil record is found, every isolated species can be created, not necessarily evolved from another entirely different species.

A scientific explanation is justifiably accepted when the evidence that is reasonably obtainable does not function to disprove the falsifiable hypothesis. So, an incomplete fossil record does not disprove the falsifiable "Evolution" hypothesis. Meanwhile, a complete fossil record wouldn't falsify your "Special Creation" claim either. So, what reasonably obtainable evidence should we expect to find if your claim is false?

[Clownboat]

However, for evolution of the species to be proven, it must be complete beyond doubt in the fossil record. And that is only because the theory is made in order to rule out any creation of the species.

Readers, do not be deceived.

That animals evolve is an observed fact and the theory that best explains this fact, the Theory of Evolution did not come about in order to rule out any creation event. In reality, not dishonest land, the Theory of Evolution isn't involved with how life began, which is why we can know that RBD is purposefully being deceitful by claiming that it is here to rule out creation.

In this thread alone I have requested many times now that RBD pretends that we know that their preferred god concept created life so that we could then discuss how it has changed. RBD refused to do this in order to continue to argue against their strawman.

You will know them by their fruits!

Until the record is completely incrementally linked from one species to another, then creation remains the reasonable explanation.

And yet this poster is unwilling to pretend that their preferred god concept created life so we can then discuss how it has change. I did not continue to ask them to consider creation as reasonable mind you, I asked them to consider it as fact in this thread in hopes of fostering debate. Sadly the strawman continues.

Evolution of the species only remains a counter-theory to creation.

Readers, do not be deceived!
Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. It could have been aliens, something natural, some god concept or fairy farts that created life. Therefore RBD is purposefully being deceitful to claim that evolution is a counter to creation. RBD can take this falsehood to their graves, but it will never make the falsehood true.

Until it's own standard of demand is completely found to prove it, then creation remains believable.

Yup! Equal to other god concepts, aliens, some natural process or fairy farts.

Since modern evolution of the species is only theorized as a counter to creation of the species

Readers, do not be deceived. You will know them by their fruits.

[Clownboat]

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

Another granddaddy of all nonsequiturs. Dogs aren't humans, cats or giraffes. Cats aren't humans, dogs or armadillos. Your attempts at satire aren't landing.

But animals are dogs and cats, and animals are not humans, therefore dogs and cats are animals, but not humans.

Unless you want to change your ideological attempts that aren't landing, and now say animals are people too.

RBD, 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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #570]

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.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that we have one less chromosome pair than other primates because we have a fused pair, biologically indicating that we used to have as many as they have. However you want to attribute our "spiritual intelligence", the biological indication is that our distant ancestors were more like the great apes of today than they were like us.

Already answered enough times.

Never adequately.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #570]

Already answered enough times.

^^^ RBD, the pseudo-christian RUNAWAY from my godly posts because he can't address them in defense of his faith and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath!

With your statement above to Athetotheis, whereas your "Word Salad Dissertations" upon said topic are ALL FOR NAUGHT if you can't defend your primitive and barbaric Jewish Bible to begin with, that my post numbers 515 and 555 to you represent, and within your own thread, run RBD, hurry, run away from them!

RBD doesn't mind in being embarrassed for his actions shown above, whereas, what's new? NOTHING! ...... LOL!



.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #581]

I believe in evolutionary theory because of the evidence of it.

No problem. Non one says anyone can't believe evolution of the species. The only problem is people trying to claim it's completely proven. And I still believe in creation, because of the same evidence for it.

There's evidence in the fossil record of a snake capable of producing human language?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to RBD in post #581]

There's evidence in the fossil record of a snake capable of producing human language?

Athetotheist,

Yes, the 'ol "talking snake" rendition in the Garden of Eden. Lest you forget, to make the Jewish Christianity Faith even more comical and MYTHICAL, there was also a "Talking Donkey" and a "Talking Bush" as laughably and embarrassingly shown below in making Christianity a total MYTH!!!:

"Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times? (Numbers 22:28)

"Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned. When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, Moses, Moses! And he said, Here I am. Then he said, Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (Exodus 3:1-4:31)


The Christian Jewish Bible that keeps on giving laughter of its MYTHICAL presence!.



.
.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #576]

Is there anything here which isn't just confirmation bias?

No more than when someone says humans use another animal language.

Who has said that?

Since ideologues are always adjusting their argument to suit the moment, they don't remember what they say from one suit to the next.

The fact remains that the theory of evolution has not met it's own demanding goal of ruling out creation in any species.

Evolution is put forth as the most likely explanation of past and current animal life. It isn't about competition.

False. Evolution is all about replacing creation, not supplementing nor accommodating. Anyone trying to argue the possibility of creation and evolution, whichever is more likely, is ignorant of original evolutionary theory.

The lie is proven, by suggesting evolution is only more likely, without ever suggesting creation is therefore likely at all.

Is creation also likely, though less? If not, then you expose the lie of evolution not being in direct competition with creation.

And so, any remaining explanation of creation is still reasonable.

Then the goddess Nu Kua fashioning the first humans from clay is still reasonable.

If that's the creation your prefer to believe, while pretending to be an evolutionist of the species. And casting aside Marx's Origin of the Species by natural selection in the process...

If the Bible has proven itself inerrant, why do its apologists have to settle for "possible" explanations for its inconsistencies?

Since the Bible still proves itself inerrant, attackers have to settle for "possible" inconsistencies, that have possible explanations.

It's the same for their quasi-speciation, where the evidence only makes it possible, and yet creation is not possible. The inconsistencies are only possible, and yet the Bible cannot possibly be inerrant...

You come across as accepting of another book's claim of inerrancy, but you still elevate the Bible as "much more demanding, and therefore conclusive". The necessity of inerrancy doesn't depend on how many writers a book has,

True, but the inerrancy between many, is more convincing than with one. Or, do you now reject 'consensus' theory?

and just because a book with many writers is made available doesn't mean that it should automatically be presumed inerrant.

You're losing the logic of the argument here. Nothing is being presumed, when something is being tested. That's why it's being tested.

It's a fact, that your real problem with evolution is that you want to believe the theory, without proving it.

Evolution is not without evidence,

Nor is it with complete evidence to prove it true. It remains only a counter-theory to creation, where the evidence can be explained by creation, or evolution. If the evidence ever completely proves the one, then it disproves the other.

Your problem with evolutionary theory is that it doesn't allow for your preferred concept of a Creator.

I have no problem with any unproven theory, book of religion, philosophy, or myth, that does not disprove the Bible.

The only problem is ideologues talking like something is proven, as though that will 'make' it proven. When ideology is the purpose, proof is not the goal.

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.
---Carl Sagan

Case in point. I've never read in the Bible any prophet, apostle, nor writer arguing against a large elegant universe, including an expanding one. In fact, the greater the better indeed, since it all shows the glory of God's handiwork.

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

When ideology is the purpose, intellectual honesty has to go. And in this case, trying to 'channel' the opposition with an insult to intelligence.

The ideologues lie in the debate, begins with misframing the argument, and then misrepresenting the opposition by it.

Sagan is arguing for evolution's necessary uncreated eternal universe without beginning, not about a greater more elegant created universe. So as to make any Creator look too small in comparison...

Only an atheist would invent believers in a little god. And only dishonest ideologues would falsely portray the opposition as willfully small-thinking...

From one evolutionary stage to the next, animals are different. They change. That's what evolution is.

False. Not with the obvious gaps necessary to prove modern theorized evolution beyond doubt, that rules out any possible creation of the species. One different animal similar to another animal, can certainly be one created animal similar, yet different, from another animal.

That kind of thinking is exactly what would keep you from accepting a full, complete fossil record even if one were presented to you.

That kind of thinking is exactly why threatening a complete record, is nonsense. When ideology is the purpose, intellectual honesty has to go.

I could easily say if evidence ever proves creation, that you'd still believe it's evolutionary, not creation. But I don't, because I don't care what people believe or refuse to believe, but only what the facts are. When ideology is the purpose, debates become personal and childish:

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

It's because it's not just about the facts, but about the conscience: Evolutionary speciation is an ideology for the conscience to deny there is a Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein...

You've already made up your mind that evolution is false, and that convinces you that there can be no evidence of it. That's what makes you reject the evidence we do have.

You and your hero have the ideologues' bad habit of ignorantly speaking for others.

I am convinced by the lack of complete evidence, that speciation still remains only a counter-theory to creation. And since the evidence allows for either or, then I continue to believe in creation, as the explanation for life and the species. Not evolution.

Only an incremental process of evolving difference, reproducing the next and the next, until reproducing the next species, can possibly dismiss the creating Hand. But then natural reproduction can't possibly, at any one time, reproduce a species, that cannot reproduce after it's former kind.

It isn't about dismissing the "creating Hand"; you have to get past that mental block.

Sun
Bun
Fun
Fur
For
Far
Fat
Mat

Here I went from "sun" to "mat", two words with none of the same letters, by changing one letter at a time. That's kind of how evolution works. The changes are slow and slight, but they add up over time.

Exactly. Another great analogy, like incremental change of human language, used to describe how evolution could work, if it were ever proven to work.

Only the ideologue says a good theoretical process, means it does work. The process does work in language and words, not in evolutionary fact.

When ideology is the purpose, objectivity is dead.

Evolution is the science of theories, not of proven fact. The original theory has supplemented itself with many more theories about it, en lieu of complete proof for it. They replace necessary evidence with great theories...The evidentiary dilemma of Marx's theory, is covered by garments of theory. The evolutionary gaps are filled with theoretical links.