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]

This fails to observe that animals evolving, is not proven fact.

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
I acknowledge that you deny known incontrovertible facts about what we know about populations changing.

I acknowledge that you deny the difference between micro-biologic changes with a species, and macro-evolution of the species, called speciation.


https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missin ... -evolution
Once again, this article is all about micro, and not macro.

It's title is deceptively meant to imply proven macro-speciation, when it only proves micro-biological transitions with a species.

Animals being many different species reproducing after their own kind, has always been known by man on earth.

Yes, animals reproduce with their own species. That is, until a population of that animal has changed enough to get to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the starter population.

And 'getting to the point' where they no longer interbreed, is a point never gotten to in fossil record, nor biological experiment.

Evolutionary speciation is always about theorizing some point in time, that's never factually gotten to.

I'm guessing you don't know what ring species are.

Just another theoretical point that's never gotten to by factual evidence nor experimentation: The point at which the gene flow of one species' seed, becomes the gene flow of another species' seed that cannot interbreed.

And in this case, it's only theorized from within the same class of species of salamander, not from one fish species to an amphibian species, nor reptile to bird, not ape to man...

The history of evolutionary theory first begins as natural philosophy, not a scientific theory based by observable evidence. A pagan natural philosophy of the universe, life, animals, and humans, without creation. This is the origin of evolutionary theory: No creation.

Nope.

Enough said.

Anyone proposing a creation-evolution philosophy and scientific theory, is making up their own ideological and imaginary version.

Why couldn't an all powerful God do this?

Whether He could or not is irrelevant, since the only record of the Creator God, Who lives before the universe He creates, says He creates all species at once in a day. No evolutionary time nor changes to produce a new species on earth.

And, any creation-evolution philosophy and scientific theory, only exists in the ideological minds of modern lay evolutionists, who don't know where and how evolutionary philosophy and theory originates, and continues as an alternative to 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.

Demonstrably false.
See Francis Collins. He even wrote the New York Times bestseller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he advocates theistic evolution and describes his conversion to Christianity.

Demonstrably proves the point: An evolutionist first converted to Christianity, and then arguing theistic evolution. Pseudo-creationists accommodating classical pagan evolutionary theory, with a creative spin added in...

It has been demonstrated that a respected evolutionist has presented their arguments for theistic evolution. You deny this at your own debating peril.

It has been demonstrated that a respected evolutionist converts to Christianity, and then argues for theistic evolution.

And now, no more a respected evolutionist among respected evolutionists, that do not convert from evolution to creation. No respected evolutionist from the time of pagan evolutionary philosophy to today's scientific theorists, have any respect toward creation, mush less any creation-evolutionary ideology of pseudo-creationists.

So, other than you, who else claims to be an evolutionist, that is not a confessed believer in the Creator, who also allows for the possibility of a Creator?

Others just like me silly!

Good example. A creation-evolution argued by an ideologue, who first mocks a god-concept of creation, and then proposes a personal creator of his own. Ideology always contradicts itself. Such as saying humans are animals, but animals are not people.

Abiogenesis is the evolutionist's attempt to explain life,

Person A: How do you explain life emerging on this planet?
Christian: I believe my God is responsible for abiogenesis.
Person A: You can't though, because RBD said so.

Because Gen 1 says so. It's not the disbelievers in Gen 1, that are a problem in debate. It's the pseudo-believers that don't believe what's written.

Which is all I've been saying: that creation is still an explanation for life, species, and man. Because classic evolution has not proven itself sufficiently to rule out creation.

And yet you are unable to envision an all powerful god concept that created both life and a mechanism for it to adapt to changes within the environment it lives within.

So, you finally get to the point: Adaptation is the nature of life on earth, not evolutionary speciation. Adapt or die, not adapt into another species, that can't reproduce after it's own kind.

If creation is an explanation as you say, then why is this not an option?

See above how the only Creator of a universe with beginning, does not give speciation that option to act independently of His creative will.

You are the only one here ruling anything out

Anyone pretending to something that is not real according to Genesis or Speciation, ought be ruled out from non-ideological practical debate.

The '3rd' option is only held by pseudo-creationists, and pseudo-evolutionists. There is no creationist believing Genesis as written, that allows for speciation, and there is no evolutionist believing the pagan philosophy and science as theorized, that allows for creation.

Correction, this is only a problem for the ideological creation story you hold to. It is not a problem for competing creation stories.

Pagan universalists did not theorize evolution to compete with creation. They never considered creation as an option.

This failed to address that this is only a problem for those that hold to some ideological creation story, such as yourself.

It's always a problem for those who believe creation as written in Genesis, and those who believe evolution as theorized by pagan philosophers and scientists.

Only quasi-creation evolutionists compete with creation and evolution at the same time:

And what if they quasi-creation evolutionists are correct?

If creation-evolution is proven correct, then both Genesis creationists, and speciation evolutionists are proven wrong.

In the meantime, no Genesis creationist nor species evolutionist gives any credit to your god-concept creating evolutionary life...

[RBD]

[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.

So then, humans are animals, and animals are humans.

If you want to draw some ideological distinction with some animals are humans, and some are not, then I'll leave you to it.

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

It's personal ideological nonsense.

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.

That's because it's personal ideological nonsense.

If you want to be an honest humans are animals believer, rather than some nonsensical qualifier, then you can simply acknowledge animals are people, with the same humans rights as all people, and should be legally defined as people.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #642]

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

So then, humans are animals, and animals are humans.

Humans are animals and human animals are humans.

If you want to draw some ideological distinction with some animals are humans, and some are not, then I'll leave you to it.

It's still common sense. Calling it ideological may make you feel better, but it doesn't change anything.

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.

That's because it's personal ideological nonsense.

That would make it your personal ideological nonsense.

If you want to be an honest humans are animals believer, rather than some nonsensical qualifier, then you can simply acknowledge animals are people, with the same humans rights as all people, and should be legally defined as people.

Am I making my argument too hard for you to refute by not saying what you want me to say?

Humans are human animals.

Other animals are nonhuman animals.

Common sense.


And are you using the word people as a substitute for "humans" in the hope that luring me into an exchange about animal rights will strengthen your argument? We can go around and around about the rights of nonhuman animals, but----

Humans are still human animals.

Other animals are still nonhuman animals.

Still common sense.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to RBD in post #642]

This argument about whether humans are animals or not seems to be entirely semantic. Your understanding of the category "animal" is based entirely on how it is described in the book of Genesis while the scientific understanding is based entirely on a broad set of shared physical characteristics. I don't understand why it is so difficult to simply acknowledge that this difference in perspective is arbitrary and does not preclude an accurate understanding of each. Nothing is prohibiting you from comprehending the reason why the book of Genesis does not classify humans as animals while simultaneously comprehending a different reason why science does classify humans as animals. If the purpose of science is to test falsifiable hypotheses, why should it be problematic that it categorizes living things by their shared physical characteristics rather than by the unfalsifiable claims in the book of Genesis?

If the book of Genesis shared the same purpose as science, then maybe there would be a justification to argue about whether humans are animals or not. However, this is not the case. The book of Genesis is not interested in the merits of testing falsifiable hypotheses about humans, animals, or anything else. Instead, it's purpose is theological. Accordingly, for theological purposes, it does not classify humans as animals. Fair enough. When doing theology, we won't classify humans as animals. When doing science, we will classify humans as animals. What would be the logical justification to demand that everyone classify humans the same way at all times in all circumstances?

If you want to argue against the classification of humans as animals when doing science, then you must do so in scientific terms rather than theological terms. If scientists want to argue against the classification of humans separately from animals when doing theology, then they must do so in theological terms rather than scientific terms.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #642]

This argument about whether humans are animals or not seems to be entirely semantic.

True. That's the nature of personal ideology, rather than scientific fact.

Your understanding of the category "animal" is based entirely on how it is described in the book of Genesis

Which has been the common sense understanding of all human history. Although the nature of animals and man was always subject, the first ones to ever conclude human are animals, are the modern evolutionary ideologues.

while the scientific understanding is based entirely on a broad set of shared physical characteristics.

No one argues against mankind having the same natural flesh of all living creatures on earth, which the Bible states, as well as similar physical characteristics to some. Including bio-genetic similarities, that science proves.

Humans have natural bodies like all animals, and are similar in shape and function to some. 'Humans are animals' is an ideological statement, with one ideological purpose: To argue against people being created in the image of God, which is what Genesis says. People being separated from all beasts of the field, by virtue of creation with spiritual intelligence and self-aware moral character, which is what is observable on a daily basis.

Ideologues stating humans are animals, are irrationally denying observable fact. Which by the way, is only observed by people, because animals can't even think to observe such things. They see different physical shapes and characteristics, but they have no rational sense of spiritual and intellectual difference. Humans are animals ideologues can play dumb like animals, but they only do so by the power of being people, not animals...

I don't understand why it is so difficult to simply acknowledge that this difference in perspective is arbitrary

The ideological difference is personally arbitrary, as is proven by their personal arguments.

Mine are not. I'm consistent, not an ideologue. We can agree to disagree, but I don't agree one is as arbitrary as the other.

and does not preclude an accurate understanding of each.

I understand the ideological 'humans are animals' argument, enough to know the ones arguing it, don't understand it.

Nothing is prohibiting you from comprehending the reason why the book of Genesis does not classify humans as animals while simultaneously comprehending a different reason why science does classify humans as animals.

Of course not. That's why I reject that humans are animals, which is not scientific, but only ideological. I do not reject the Bible and science of humans having the same natural flesh of all animals, and have similar physical features and biological substance of some.

You're the one that does not comprehend nor understand the different arguments.

If the purpose of science is to test falsifiable hypotheses, why should it be problematic that it categorizes living things by their shared physical characteristics rather than by the unfalsifiable claims in the book of Genesis?

Once again, of course there's no problem with acknowledging similar physical features, as well as proving similar biological make up. But that does not make a physical match between humans and any animal. And, 'humans are animals' is an ideological statement, not scientific.

If the book of Genesis shared the same purpose as science,

Genesis and the Bible is confirmed by many sciences, as well as historical accuracy. Nor does the Bible contradict scientific facts.

But the purpose of the Bible is not to prove what can't be seen, but to declare what is not seen.

The book of Genesis is not interested in the merits of testing falsifiable hypotheses about humans, animals, or anything else. Instead, it's purpose is theological.

False, the theological declarations, as well as science and history in the Bible, are all open to falsifiable proofs of science, logic, and rational sense. So long as the Bible is never in fact proven wrong, then it all remains falsifiably believable.

The same with evolutionary speciation, where only proof of creation, would disprove it. And vica-versa.

Accordingly, for theological purposes, it does not classify humans as animals. Fair enough. When doing theology, we won't classify humans as animals. When doing science, we will classify humans as animals.

False. Humans are animals is only classified by ideology.

If you want to say humans have the same natural bodies as all animals, and are physically and biologically similar to some, then do so. We agree. But any talk of 'humans are animals' and 'humans are classified as animals', is ideological, not scientific.

Human physical flesh is classified the same as all animal bodies, and human physical bodies are classified more similar to some. That is Bible and science, and we agree. Which no sensible person can dispute, since it's as obvious as daily observation and experience.

My body is the same natural flesh of all animals, and looks more similar to some than others. I'm not an animal. Nor do I classify myself as an animal. Nor do I care if others want to classify me as an animal. I suppose I'd have to make an ethical decision on whether to agree with an ideological lie, if it came up in a paleoanthropological course. Which classes I took in college, and wholeheartedly agreed at the time. I was an evolutionary ideologue. But, I was not a hypocrite, trying to pay any lip-service to creation and the Creator.

Which is why I'm not a creation hypocrite trying to pay lip-service to humans are animals, by human-animal speciation...

What would be the logical justification to demand that everyone classify humans the same way at all times in all circumstances?

They can choose to by the Bible, and/or they must by physical observation and scientific proof. Except of course for unproven animal-human speciation...

[Clownboat]

[Replying to RBD in post #642]

This argument about whether humans are animals or not seems to be entirely semantic. Your understanding of the category "animal" is based entirely on how it is described in the book of Genesis while the scientific understanding is based entirely on a broad set of shared physical characteristics. I don't understand why it is so difficult to simply acknowledge that this difference in perspective is arbitrary and does not preclude an accurate understanding of each. Nothing is prohibiting you from comprehending the reason why the book of Genesis does not classify humans as animals while simultaneously comprehending a different reason why science does classify humans as animals. If the purpose of science is to test falsifiable hypotheses, why should it be problematic that it categorizes living things by their shared physical characteristics rather than by the unfalsifiable claims in the book of Genesis?

If the book of Genesis shared the same purpose as science, then maybe there would be a justification to argue about whether humans are animals or not. However, this is not the case. The book of Genesis is not interested in the merits of testing falsifiable hypotheses about humans, animals, or anything else. Instead, it's purpose is theological. Accordingly, for theological purposes, it does not classify humans as animals. Fair enough. When doing theology, we won't classify humans as animals. When doing science, we will classify humans as animals. What would be the logical justification to demand that everyone classify humans the same way at all times in all circumstances?

If you want to argue against the classification of humans as animals when doing science, then you must do so in scientific terms rather than theological terms. If scientists want to argue against the classification of humans separately from animals when doing theology, then they must do so in theological terms rather than scientific terms.

I don't think that RBD grasps the difference between theology and science unfortunately. Even after you clarified it so well here sadly. One thing seems certain though, they have no clue what an ideology is nor how to use the word in sentences.

Scientifically speaking, we know that humans are animals.
I acknowledge that we have a poster here that fails to grasp this for religious reasons. This is why we educate our children and wait for those that don't accept science to die off. You know, like how we finally got people to understand that the earth was not at the center of our galaxy (we educated our children and let the decenters die).

For evolution, we are most of the way there it seems and the lack of support for this debater here in this thread suggests the truth of this.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to RBD in post #645]

Trolling is in violation if this forum's terms of service and has been reported accordingly.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #646]

I reported RBD's intellectually dishonest trolling behavior to the mods.

[POI]

Ideologues stating humans are animals, are irrationally denying observable fact. Which by the way, is only observed by people, because animals can't even think to observe such things. They see different physical shapes and characteristics, but they have no rational sense of spiritual and intellectual difference. Humans are animals ideologues can play dumb like animals, but they only do so by the power of being people, not animals...

Taken from basic biology:

Humans are classified as animals within the biological kingdom Animalia. This classification is based on shared characteristics such as being multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic (not producing their own food), and possessing the ability for independent movement. The term "animal" in a biological context refers to organisms within this broad kingdom, encompassing everything from insects to mammals, including humans.

Biological Classification of Humans

Kingdom: Animalia: Humans belong to this kingdom because they share fundamental traits with other animals, such as being multicellular, eukaryotic, and unable to make their own food.

Phylum: Chordata: Humans are chordates because they possess a backbone.

Class: Mammalia: Humans are mammals, distinguished by having hair and producing milk to feed their young.

Order: Primates: Within the mammal class, humans are placed in the order Primates, sharing characteristics like opposable thumbs with other primates, such as gorillas and chimpanzees.

Genus: Homo: Our species belongs to the genus Homo, with Homo sapiens being the only living species within it.

Understanding the "Animal" Terminology

While the word "animal" is often used colloquially to mean "not human," in a scientific context, humans are a distinct species of animal. Just as dogs and cats are different but both animals, humans are different from other animals but still belong to the same biological kingdom

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

You keep skipping:

In honor of posts 149 and 358, the meat and potatoes of our exchange has been perpetually avoided.

P1) The acts of empathy, fairness, and justice are deemed moral actions.
P2) Besides Homo sapiens, other animals demonstrate acts of empathy, fairness, and/or justice.
P3) Which logically means other animals demonstrate moral actions.
P4) Therefore, this topic is finished. It's game over. According to your own view, Genesis 1 is incorrect.

***********************

If you cannot refute P1) or P2), this debate is over. Your position is then proven false.