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 #604]

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 #.

If you have to ask if I believe it, I must not have said it.

You won't answer, because you know you could have said it.

I know I could have said it?

If I said it, show me where.

Then you own the argument. No problem. I wasn't going to bother re-arguing something, if the owner started arguing around it. Post 560

Argument review: Defending the inconsistency of humans are animals, but animals aren't humans.

At one point, the argument against the Bible was made against snakes using human language. The challenge was, "Arguing against snakes using human language, is arguing against humans being animals." The response was, "Snakes not using human language only means animals are not human." The conclusion is, that humans not using animal language, therefore means humans are not animals.

The final response in Post 560: "Not speaking other animal language means that humans aren't (those) other animals. A dog and a cat are both animals even though the dog doesn't mew and the cat doesn't bark."

The final challenge is, "And yet animals are dogs and cats. Therefore if humans are other animals than dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans." The final conclusion is, if humans are animals like dogs, cats, fish, apes, etc..., then animals are dogs, cats, fish, apes, humans, etc...

It shows the process of how an inconsistent personal ideology always contradicts itself at the end of a Socratic argument. Logical challenges provoke responses that end in self-contradiction: If animals aren't humans by not using human language, then humans aren't animals by not using animal language. If humans are other animals than dogs and cats, and animals are dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans.

The conclusion is that humans are animals, but animals aren't humans, must be a personal ideology, not a scientific statement. Like humans, what other species of animal is an animal, and yet an animal is not that species? The apes being human ancestors, are apes also other animals like humans, but animals are not apes either?

Personal ideology is not scientific fact with logical consistency.

[RBD]

Now, as far as what created the universe, my belief in a creator God is not a problem existing without space, matter, or energy. He created space, time, and energy. And that is my point: whatever it is that created the universe has to be able to exist without space, matter, or energy. This is impossible in the metaphysical naturalistic belief system. If there was a time when this universe did not exist, then space, matter, and energy did not exist. It is at the creation of this universe that metaphysical naturalism beliefs can no longer exist.

Exactly. Without a Creator, then there is no creation at all. The universe is eternal without beginning.

The theory of evolution began with pagan natural philosophers, who had no creation in mind at all. Their natural sciences were all based upon an uncreated universe. Their theology was of evolving primordial deities, not of creators, and especially not of a Creator, living apart from a universe with a created beginning.

Other than the pagan theology, later natural philosophers and modern evolutionary theorists do not contest the necessary premise of an uncreated universe without beginning. They just prefer to call the primordial gods, soup.

[RBD]

If they are unfalsifiable, they are beliefs by definition.

This includes falsifiable. By definition a proven scientific fact, like gravity, is not a falsifiable theory. So long as any theory remains falsifiable, then by definition it can only be believed, because it's not proven as a fact, like gravity.

People can believe in creation or evolution, but gravity is not believed in. There can be objective skeptics that do not believe in either, without conclusive proof. There are no objective skeptics of gravity.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Granted, for the sake of argument, that Genesis 1:1 is an incontrovertible fact, but does it necessarily mean that God could've not used the Big Bang or Cosmic Inflation, as proposed by Alan Guth, as the mechanism to kick-start the universe? The language of the scriptures allows for the possibility that God could've.

Actually, the present Big Bang theory would have to be altered, in order to fit Gen 1.

1. Rather than a universe of hot gas and dust prior to banging into shining stars, it would have to acknowledge a universe of dark waters through the depths of the universe.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

2. The multitude of stars all shone at once in one day, not formed over expanse of time.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.


3. And of course, they would have to acknowledge the heaven and earth were created, not eternal without beginning. And by a Creator seat apart from the new universe with beginning.

And so, a Big Bang isn't descriptive of Gen 1, which is more like God turning on the lights across the heavens of the universe.

both the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theories, support the Bible's nonnegotiable contention that the universe had a beginning.

Only true for the expanding universe. Nothing in the Bible suggests a static universe once God created it in one day. New stars formed of hot gas and dust continues. It's the Big Bang that is theorized without direct evidence, as a sort of back-azimuth to a compacted universe without any shining stars. Science proves the universe was smaller in the beginning, but that doesn't mean it was without stars at any time of it's beginning.

Referring to the Big Bang, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote in 1978: Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.

So long as he acknowledges that all the stars of the beginning universe were shining at that flash of light, then he's closer to Gen 1. But of course, he's not then talking about the Big Bang theory.

That flash of light and energy might well be what the late physicist Carl Sagan says in Cosmos : "At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations." He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as "the most awesome transformation of matter and energy [E=mc2] that we have been privileged to glimpse." Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21

And of course Sagan was not a creationist. He did not believe nor argue for a created universe with beginning. And, it was eternal hot gas and dust before implosion, into stars formed, as he would say, billions and billions of years later...

And we can add that an eternal universe without beginning, must be as the pagans say, the primordial deities, not soup. Without creation, there can be no created life and intelligence in the universe. And, it's pagan natural philosophers who also first theorized evolution of life and the species...

"Of course, many scientists believe that the Big Bang was a spontaneous, undirected event that led to the self-arranging of particles of matter into stars and planets over a period of time. The Bible does not support that view but states that the formation of the universe was a direct act of God, whether he employed some sort of cosmic explosion or some other method of creation. " -g2015 October p. 8 "The Bible's Viewpoint | Evolution"

A directed act resulting in all the stars of the beginning universe shining over a period of time no more than 24 hrs.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by Gods word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

I.e. by the Spirit not of the universe, making the universe to shine, and the earth to grow life, and man to walk on earth in God's image...

Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #614]

Since theistic creation is only theorized by Genesis, then any theistic evolution is proven false by Genesis.

Nonsequitur. Genesis can be wrong.

Clarify. Anyone arguing a theistic evolution with creation, is arguing a nonsequitur of their own, since the only religion of theist creation is in Gen 1. Theistic evolution is only argued by pagan natural philosophers and a sect of Hindu, where the uncreated universe is it's own evolving god and gods, called primordial deities.

Only Gen 1 declares a Creator living apart from the universe, creating the universe with a beginning. Therefore, anyone arguing theistic creation-evolution, is an ideologue trying to mix Gen 1, with pagan evolution of uncreated primordial deities.

I.e. anyone can believe in the eternally old pagan gods, evolving nature and species over time. But they need to leave the Bible out of such theistic evolution natural philosophy and theory.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #614]

Since theistic creation is only theorized by Genesis, then any theistic evolution is proven false by Genesis.

Nonsequitur. Genesis can be wrong.

Clarify. Anyone arguing a theistic evolution with creation, is arguing a nonsequitur of their own, since the only religion of theist creation is in Gen 1. Theistic evolution is only argued by pagan natural philosophers and a sect of Hindu, where the uncreated universe is it's own evolving god and gods, called primordial deities.

Only Gen 1 declares a Creator living apart from the universe, creating the universe with a beginning. Therefore, if Gen 1 is wrong, then so is theistic creation-evolution. And if Gen 1 is correct, then any theistic creation-evolution is proven wrong.

Anyone arguing theistic creation-evolution, is an ideologue trying to mix Gen 1, with pagan evolution of uncreated primordial deities. Which of course is wrong, since Gen 1 is universal creation with a beginning, and evolutionary theory is for an uncreated universe without beginning.

[RBD]

If God did not create the universe, what did?

This is where evolutionary philosophers and theorists are set apart from laymen ideologues. Evolutionary theory began and continues with an uncreated universe without beginning.

Evolution by definition demands something before to evolve from. And there is no creation with a Creator, living apart from the creation. And with a Creator, there is no need for evolution to explain the creation, which is all evolutionary philosophy and theory ever was and remains today: An alternative explanation for the universe, life, and the species, and man, in absence of creation by a Creator...

There are Bible creationists, that have argued in the past and today, for a kind of theistic evolution, but it's only because they don't believe all of Gen 1 as written. But only pseudo-evolutionists are trying argue creation-evolution. There is no accepted evolutionary philosophy and science, that pays any lip-service to creation. It's a self-contradiction.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #636]

Since theistic creation is only theorized by Genesis, then any theistic evolution is proven false by Genesis.

Nonsequitur. Genesis can be wrong.

Clarify.

Simply declaring theistic creation doesn't prove Genesis correct.

Theistic evolution is only argued by pagan natural philosophers and a sect of Hindu, where the uncreated universe is it's own evolving god and gods, called primordial deities.

Since theistic creation isn't proven correct by Genesis simply declaring it, theistic evolution may be correct.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #631]

The conclusion is that humans are animals, but animals aren't humans, must be a personal ideology, not a scientific statement.

Humans are animals. Non-human animals are not humans.

That isn't personal ideology. It's common sense.

Like humans, what other species of animal is an animal, and yet an animal is not that species? The apes being human ancestors, are apes also other animals like humans, but animals are not apes either?

I have no idea how to untangle that rat's nest.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to RBD in post #604]

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 #.

If you have to ask if I believe it, I must not have said it.

You won't answer, because you know you could have said it.

I know I could have said it?

If I said it, show me where.

Then you own the argument. No problem. I wasn't going to bother re-arguing something, if the owner started arguing around it. Post 560

Argument review: Defending the inconsistency of humans are animals, but animals aren't humans.

At one point, the argument against the Bible was made against snakes using human language. The challenge was, "Arguing against snakes using human language, is arguing against humans being animals." The response was, "Snakes not using human language only means animals are not human." The conclusion is, that humans not using animal language, therefore means humans are not animals.

The final response in Post 560: "Not speaking other animal language means that humans aren't (those) other animals. A dog and a cat are both animals even though the dog doesn't mew and the cat doesn't bark."

The final challenge is, "And yet animals are dogs and cats. Therefore if humans are other animals than dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans." The final conclusion is, if humans are animals like dogs, cats, fish, apes, etc..., then animals are dogs, cats, fish, apes, humans, etc...

It shows the process of how an inconsistent personal ideology always contradicts itself at the end of a Socratic argument. Logical challenges provoke responses that end in self-contradiction: If animals aren't humans by not using human language, then humans aren't animals by not using animal language. If humans are other animals than dogs and cats, and animals are dogs and cats, then those other animals are humans.

The conclusion is that humans are animals, but animals aren't humans, must be a personal ideology, not a scientific statement. Like humans, what other species of animal is an animal, and yet an animal is not that species? The apes being human ancestors, are apes also other animals like humans, but animals are not apes either?

Personal ideology is not scientific fact with logical consistency.

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? Please note that language is not relevant.