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...)

[Clownboat]

[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.

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?

[RBD]

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.

No one is saying it is. In all your learned falsifiable/unfalsifiable speak, you need to make a little room for understanding on the fly. Too much formulism retards impromptu comprehension.

Meanwhile, a complete fossil record wouldn't falsify your "Special Creation" claim either.

False. Evolutionary speciation is a theory made up entirely for the purpose of replacing creation, not supplementing nor accompanying creation. That's why it's own internal demand for a complete fossil record is inherently produced by the purpose of the theory.

The purpose of the theory cannot be isolated nor independent of proving the theory: It must be completely proven beyond reasonable doubt, so that the purpose is satisfied in ruling out any creation of life and the species on earth.

Unless the evidence completely forbids any creation, then evolution cannot be proven. The same for creation needing to prove itself, by ruling out any evolutionary process in life and the species. By definition, they are unaccommodating opposing antagonists.

In fact, the creationist can explain why the evidence remains a dilemma, that proves neither side.

Heb11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Jhn 20:27 Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

2Co 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

The creationist can say that the Creator has purposely chosen not to physically prove Himself nor His creation of heaven and earth, life and the species. Because He seeks those with faith, so that He can only be found, and proven true, by faith.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

the evolutionist however is stuck between two dilemmas: One is the vexing problem for them, that prevents satisfactory proof for evolution. The other is refusing to accept their theory by faith, but only by sight.

The ideologue of course 'just talks' like it's proven, while pretending to disclaim faith alone in evolution, as though it were by proven sight alone, like gravity and germs.

[RBD]

The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

They remain unwittingly, or knowingly ignorant of the theory's own original purpose against creation, and the resultant necessary demand for complete evidence, so as to prove itself and replace creation. And so, they get perplexed/offended about that continued demand, when all they offer is sporadic examples, that creation can easily claim explanation for. The demand 'for more', is therefore not from critics alone, but originally from the theory itself.

Here is what the objective evolutionist must submit to, when talking about his own theory:
1. The theory is not organically deduced from complete evidence, like that of gravity. It originated as a theory alone, in search of complete proof.
2. The theory is made as a direct counter and replacement to any creation of life and species on earth.
3. The theory's own purpose therefore produces it's own demand for complete incremental evidentiary proof, not just isolated examples, which can still be claimed by creation.
4. The theory's own purpose, which is to disprove creation, therefore has the burden of proof against creation. Since creation is already satisfied as an explanation for life and the species, by the fact of life and the species on earth.

Conclusion: The purpose of the theory cannot be isolated/separated from the demanding proof. Almost enough evidence, like similarity studies, is not sufficient to prove evolutionary speciation, and therefore replace creation. Neither do endless scenarios of the incremental process, aid in proving the theory. In fact, each new similarity study, and accurate description of the necessary process, only highlights the fact that differently breeding species, fish and reptiles, humans and primates, do not ever match one another, nor does any sporadic evidence prove the theory over creation.

So long as creation remains a reasonable option for all the evidence at hand, then evolution remains only a theorized replacement for it. Until there is completely proven physical evidence, both creationists and evolutionists alike can reasonably claim either explanation for life and the species. And no objective creationist nor evolutionist can claim either has been proven physically, which would defacto disprove the other.

It's only the ideologues, who talk like one or the other is a proven physical fact. 'Humans are animals, evolved with primates', is an ideological statement, not a proven fact. Which further proves itself as ideological, by the personal illogical refusal to say animals are human, and primates are persons.

[Clownboat]

In all your learned falsifiable/unfalsifiable speak, you need to make a little room for understanding on the fly. Too much formulism retards impromptu comprehension.

Ya Bluegreenearth! Shame on you!
Claims about the supernatural, subjective experiences, or claims that can be endlessly modified to avoid contradiction should be treated just like claims that are falsifiable. Shame on you for all you have learned about falsifiable and unfalsifiable! Shame on you for not having room for understanding and shame on your for having retarded impromptu comprehension.

When I say there is a magical invisible dragon in my garage, don't you dare criticize such a thing! You can't falsify it anyways, because it's magical and invisible remember. My dragon is as real as the theory of gravity and should be taken just as seriously! Shame on you and your comprehension.

/sarcasm off

Does anyone wonder why RBD fails to explain what part of the definition for animal that they take issue with?

RBD: I take issue with humans being animals.
Clownboat: Here is the definition for animal. Where do you take issue?
RBD: Your learning has failed you!
Everyone witnessing what is taking place:

[Clownboat]

The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

This is slander, not debate.

Readers. let's test RBD's words for accuracy and honesty:

Claim: The Christian God created life which has since changed.

^ RBD has once again been supplied with an argument that both includes creation and evolution, therefore their insistent claim that evolution must be against creation has been shown to be false. I'm open to criticism of this if anyone can think of any.

They remain unwittingly, or knowingly ignorant of the theory's own original purpose against creation

Something tells me that RBD will not correct their thinking on this.

Here is what the objective evolutionist must submit to, when talking about his own theory:
1. The theory is not organically deduced from complete evidence, like that of gravity. It originated as a theory alone, in search of complete proof.

Let's grant this to see if you even have a point. I don't think you do.

2. The theory is made as a direct counter and replacement to any creation of life and species on earth.

This claims has been shown to be a falsehood.

3. The theory's own purpose therefore produces it's own demand for complete incremental evidentiary proof, not just isolated examples, which can still be claimed by creation.

You got the purpose wrong.

4. The theory's own purpose, which is to disprove creation, therefore has the burden of proof against creation. Since creation is already satisfied as an explanation for life and the species, by the fact of life and the species on earth.

Wrong about the purpose and what you say doesn't follow anyway even if you were correct about the purpose.

It's only the ideologues, who talk like one or the other is a proven physical fact. 'Humans are animals, evolved with primates', is an ideological statement, not a proven fact. Which further proves itself as ideological, by the personal illogical refusal to say animals are human, and primates are persons.

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 #590]

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.

So, you can't tell me who has said it?

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...

You're the one picking and choosing between creation stories. It isn't just cooincidence that it's always the Bible you quote, is it? That's what I'm pointing out with my references to Nu Kua.

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

How can you assume that the Bible "proves itself inerrant" when you can't know that there's even a "possible" explanation for every inconsistency?

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.

You presume that the Bible "proves itself 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?

Still presuming inerrancy.


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.

Do you mean, as long as it does not disprove the Bible?

The only problem is ideologues talking like something is proven, as though that will 'make' it proven.

.....while you go on as if talking about the Bible like it's inerrant will make it inerrant.

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...

Yet you can't conceive of a god who could grandly, subtly and elegantly employ a long, slow evolutionary process to unfold the universe?

To add some context, here's the quote from Sagan extended:

"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.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge."

Evolutionary speciation is an ideology for the conscience to deny there is a Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein...

Evolutionary speciation is a scientific theory to explain how life has developed on Earth.

Evolution is the science of theories, not of proven fact.

Again, the stubborn and all-too-common misconception of the relationship between theory and proven fact. Theories are founded on observable facts to start us in the right direction. Theories are conclusions supported by the best available evidence.

If evolution were wrong, there would be no evidence of it. There is far too much evidence of evolution for it to be wrong.

[RBD]

Readers, do not be deceived.

That animals evolve is an observed fact

Ideologues use deception to indoctrinate: 'Animals evolve' can mean something as simple as humans physically adapting to environmental surroundings. A change of height, skin color, physical shape, etc...but still human, which is not the theory of evolutionary speciation.

Animals that evolve from one species to a different non-interbreeding species, is not a proven fact at all. All that is given are isolated examples of mutation, or another unconforming species. Which can be easily explained by creation, without all the necessary incremental changes before and after, from one species to another.

and the theory that best explains this fact,

The theory that best explains the theory of evolution, is evolutionary theory, which is all it is in fact: A theory supplemented by more theories to explain the theory, not life and the species.

Theory of Evolution did not come about in order to rule out any creation event.

False. Quasi-revisionist evolutionists, are either unwittingly, or purposely ignorant of evolutionary theory's origin of species: to explain life and the species without creation.

Therefore, the theory itself, and it's own demand of complete evidence, cannot accommodate creation. No respected evolutionist indulges in some layman ideologue's alternative, that evolution is only a supplement theory accompanying creation. That also goes for respected creationists, not indulging in creation with evolution.

The two cannot accompany one another, since creation is instant and specific, with nothing of it's kind produced before it, while evolution is always a change from something before it.

In fact, not only does evolution of life and the species demand an eternal universe without beginning, it demands that the eternal universe always has been evolving. Otherwise, there was a time of no evolutionary process, so that evolution itself has a created beginning.

In reality, not dishonest land, the Theory of Evolution isn't involved with how life began,

False again. Evolution must be of life, if it is to be of the species. Otherwise, creation begins all things, including at some point a theorized evolution, that now has no purpose nor usefulness, since all things are already created in life and the species.

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's attempt to explain life, by a naturally selective evolutionary process from inorganic matter, to organic life. The layman ideologue once again remains unwittingly, or purposely ignorant. So much so, that abiogenesis is rejected as evolutionary, so that natural gradual randomly selective changes, from one thing to something different, is no more an evolutionary process: Dystopian evolution theory becomes more creative, rather than an evolutionary process.

The bastardized theory of creation supplemented by evolution, is an ideologue's doublemindedness: Wanting to believe in animal speciation, especially humans from primates, and also in a Creator creating one to evolve into the other, which is not creation of the humans, but only of the primates. Rather than creating each separately at once, which is the definition of creating both.

This form of hybridization first corrupts the definition of evolution. Then theorizes a created primate evolving into an uncreated man.

The Bible speaks of having a form of religion, that's only ideological in nature. So also now with a form of evolution.

In this thread alone I have requested many times now that RBD pretends that we know that their preferred god concept created life

The only proven pretense here, is a pseudo-evolutionist preferring his own god created concept of life, followed by evolution of the species.

Unless now, there's ideological creation without the Creator? A creation creating itself?

so that we could then discuss how it has changed.

It's a fact that some species are extinct. That some species change within themselves to adapt to natural surroundings.

Anything else is only evolutionary theory to displace creation of life and the species.

RBD refused to do this in order to continue to argue against their strawman.

Just waiting for you to walk into your own personal version of creation-evolution. Creatolution? The Creator creating life and evolution of the species, or creation creating itself with life and evolution of itself...

You will know them by their fruits!

You will know them by letting them talk long enough.

[RBD]

[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?

No more than humans capable of producing another animal language.

[RBD]

The problem here, is that some laymen evolutionists, who have immersed themselves in certain anatomical and biological studies about humans and primates, nonetheless fail in their arguments for evolution, which must be against creation.

This is slander, not debate.

This is nondebatable.

^ RBD has once again been supplied with an argument that both includes creation and evolution,

This is proof it's nondebatable.

Claim: The Christian God created life which has since changed.

And?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #590]

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

Who has said that?

Go review your own posts.

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

So, you can't tell me who has said it?

Do you agree or disagree, that humans use another animal language, rather than that of other animals like dogs and cats? Answer for yourself, and I'll give you the post #.

Otherwise, go review your own posts.