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]

You can deny your own spirit and intelligence, that no primate has, and even that of others. But only your own is degraded and made brutish.

Now that is just silly. Information was provided to you (characteristics of primates specifically) and it is you that is denying it. Claiming that your debate opponent is denying a spirit that has yet to be evidenced is illogical and claiming that they are doing what you are in fact doing is strange don't you think? Do you know why you are denying primate characteristics? I do.

<Snipped a Bible verse>

It's called the power of man created in the image of God, to choose darkness over light, and ignorance over intelligence.

What is?
The above reads as if you think it is a power man has to choose darkness over light, and ignorance over intelligence. Are you able to explain what you mean by these seemingly random words you chose to put together in a sentence?

When you can't, I suggest you insult me instead. That's how you win debates.

[Clownboat]

No one says new stars don't form of gas, nor that the universe is expanding thereby. You're still missing the simple point: Just because the universe is expanding with new stars formed of gas, does not mean the universe began as gas alone, without stars yet formed.

You quoted this, but didn't actually address it. Why?
Copy/paste: "If gas can form stars now, why couldn't gas form stars as the universe began?"

The Bible says the universe began with stars formed all at once,.

You really have no idea how unimpressive these words are, do you? Imagine you are talking to people who have not made an idol out of the Bible for a minute.

The Bible account has more direct evidence of the universal beginning of stars, that are already formed and shining light, simply because we see they are.

I'm sorry, but we understand how stars form. You can pretend that stars have always existed if you want, it matters not.

The back-azimuth theory of an expanding universe beginning in one gaseous place, is not provable, just because an expanding universe with new stars born of gas, is proven.

Just leaving this here for all to see.

Since we do see a universe of shining stars, and no one has seen anything different,

What the!?!
Are we now to deny the existence of asteroids, black holes, gas clouds, comets etc...?

nor can scientifically prove otherwise,

You seriously aren't denying the existence of these very real things, are you? What's your problem with the existence of asteroids for example?

then by our own sense of experience, we can intelligently accept that the universe began this way.

You need to use logic and reason. You can't just add the word 'intelligently' to a claim to make it actually reasonable. That is all you have done here.

It's only those who have no known intelligence otherwise, that must accept a gaseous place without stars, by blind faith alone.

Do I have this correct? You actually believe that it requires a person to have no known intelligence to accept a gaseous place without stars. Perhaps you are not aware that not all gas clouds turn in to stars? Stars are formed when the giant gas and dust cloud collapses due to its own gravity. When this happens, it is the mass that determines whether it will be a star or not. Therefore some gas clouds remain gas clouds (a gaseous place without stars). Your claims require far too much denial of known reality to be credible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #67]

characteristics of primates:

hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

Human beings are primates.

You can deny your own spirit and intelligence, that no primate has, and even that of others. But only your own is degraded and made brutish.

I'm not denying any spirit or intelligence. I'm simply pointing out that we humans have physical traits which make us primates.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

The Bible says the universe began with stars formed all at once,. The Bible account has more direct evidence of the universal beginning of stars, that are already formed and shining light, simply because we see they are.

[RBD]

Human beings are not primate animals.

Christina A. Crawford, Principles of Biology, p. 290:

I see. I'm wrong that people are obviously not primate animals, because the primate Christina says we certainly are animals. People are animals too. Rather people are only animals in the end.

And since neither the Bible nor any sensible person believes animals are raised from the dead to be judged for their works, then neither do animal people. (Which wouldn't have anything to do with the ideology, that all people in the end are just animals too...)

And since people are animals too, then animals are people too. Do all people calling themselves animals, also call animals people? If not, why not. Otherwise, people can't be animals, if animals aren't also people. If A = B, then B must = A.

PETA certainly does believe animals are people too, and therefore have all the rights of animal people. And not just the primate people, but all animals on earth are people with rights too. You see PETA people are not run amok with animals being people too, but rather are the honest people animals, who say all animals are people too.

The rest the animal people, who say animals are not people with rights, are bigoted hypocrites, that think they have some sort of 'people-privilege' apart from all the other less privileged animals on earth. They may be animals, but not that kind of animal...

[RBD]

Human beings are not primate animals.

Christina A. Crawford, Principles of Biology, p. 290:

Let's look at the scientific evidence:

All human beings are highly adaptive animals

We have the ideology that people are animals stated as fact, but so far no evidence. However, there is a shout out to people animals, that we are at least highly adaptive animals, though only animals in the end.

This is called ideological propaganda sprinkled with salt. The truth of human adaptability has nothing to do with the argument of people being animals.
It's a purposed insert to avoid an obvious insult: To wit, All human being are animals...

It's classic propaganda technique 101: flatter the audience, in order to indoctrinate with ideology, that is without evidence. Add a little sugar to the poisonous pill.

And, the hidden poison of the pill, that is left unspoken, is that all people are only animals, just like all animals of the earth.

of the genus and species homeo sapien sapiens physically and physiologically they are classified taxonomically

And so, for anyone swallowing the ideological pill, it is digested deeper by now naming people as animals. Since people are animals, then people need an animal name. It's the dehumanization of people into animals by inhuman scientific taxonomy.

It's the power of naming names: As one is named, so is he:

1Sa 25:25 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him:

as member of the order primates which is a part of the class mammalia

Now that the ideology is wholly digested, the ideologue can speak freely of people being members of the animal family. It's no longer the human family, but the human-primate family. Humans and primates are not ideologically made one.

No factual evidence yet, but plenty of good training in ideological psyops. The human apes among us, like the good philanthrimate Christina, are going to first try to make us all a family of apes. Any anti-primate people can be dealt with later in another more physical manner. Permanently.

since humans and other members of primates monkeys and apes are biologically related

And now the circular loop of ideology is closed upon itself. A conclusion states as fact, based upon an ideology stated as fact. No 'if' at all.

And what's deceptively creative about it, is that the loop is interchangeable in order of statement: Since all humans are animals, and named as animals, then all humans and are biologically related to primates...Since all humans are relatives of primates, then all humans are animals, in need of animal names...Each one is stated as fact in order to prove the other. And stated order doesn't matter.

And of course, the family membership with animals is reinforced with being primate family relations...

scientists presume both groups to be the products of a similar evolutionary process.

And now we finally look for the factual proof, and there is no there there. No factual evidence, but only PRESUMPTION. Ideology, not science.

The lynchpin of proof is waxen presumption, for a wagon full of ideology covered with scientific jargon.

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;

It's the same manner of ideological propaganda titled, The Big Bang Is Beyond Doubt. An Expert Reveals Why. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-big-ba ... eveals-why

In Principles of Ideological Biology, Lucy's, I mean, Christina's great presumption replaces factual evidence. In like manner, the great beyond doubt declaration for the Big Bang, is admitted to have no direct evidence at all. How then can it be beyond doubt, without direct proof? Because an 'expert' says so, in a 'scientific' alert:

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Once again, as with presumption presented as fact, so with something 'beyond doubt' being without direct evidence. Ideology, not science.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

The evolutionary process that produced homeo sapiens sapiens from a previously existing species

And finally, the closed loop ideology does not allow for humans evolving from humans. The previously existing human could not have been a person, but only a primate.

The ideological process that produced human animals, is from a previously existing ideology, that people are animals...All presumptive ideology, not scientific proof.

is also believed to account for diversifications within the modern human population such as racial differentiation

Doesn't Christina-Lucy mean human-primate population?

And, speaking of race: Since people are just animals, like all animals, then why all the human-people alone talk in the family of animals? Once again, doesn't that have a 'people-privilege' tone? A bigoted human-concentric ring to it? Doesn't that inherently isolate us human people from other animals, especially are primate relatives? Isn't that rank exclusivity?

Just as there are human animals, demanding that gender-specific identifiers be finally eradicated. I also demand that human-people identification be also dismissed, for the more ideologically pleasing taxonomy of human-animal, or people-primate.

Unless of course there is equal inclusiveness for animals identified as humans: Animals are people too, no humans only! Four legs good, two legs bad!

[RBD]

Not so. There is the evidence of scientific fact of motion, that the ball could not have begun in midflight, and so must have begun with initial force.

Yes. And there's evidence that the starry sky that was seen by the biblical authors didn't represent the initial state of the universe.

And yet there's no evidence given. Until you show the direct evidence, all you have is a cosmological ideology. Ideological blind faith is not objective evidence proving anything.

So far, your Big Bang ideology, is nothing but a fabulous virus of the mythical sort, attaching itself to the cosmological host of universal expansionism.

An expanding universe only means, that they certainly didn't see the same sky as today, since the universe is expanding...Nor did Adam and Eve. However they did see the same universe of expansive stars from day one.

There is no direct evidence of any single gaseous place without stars, exploding into the present universe of stars.

The universe is not a ball flying nor hanging in midair. There is no scientific fact that it must have started unexpanded from one place.

If you're quibbling on the word "fact,"

Only to the blind ideologue, is fact a quibbling thing. To the objective observer, fact is everything. It's the difference between scientific proof, and ideological belief.

Very good. He proved the universe is moving and expanding. He did not prove nor theorize that it began as a condensed ball moved from one place.

Are you now arguing that the Bible stories include an expanding universe? Or are you, as I suspect, trying to shift the goalposts?

I am moving the Big Bang ball from having anything to do with an expanding universe. And Big Bang ideologues from the astronomer Hubble.

I also remove the human-primate evolutionist ideologues, from the scientists proving biological evolution within a single species.

[RBD]

humans are completely different from all other natural creatures on earth, so that there can be no crossover between them and us.

False.

Some animals do show behaviors that resemble the building blocks of morality—such as empathy, fairness, cooperation, and even a sense of justice.

So, animals are people too?

Natural instinct is not morality, because morality is a judgment of responsibility for actions. Are you saying animals are judged responsible for their behavior?

Man is the only person with free will to choose to act contrary to nature, whether for the good or the evil.

Are you saying some animals are persons?

Primates (especially chimpanzees and bonobos) -- Empathy & Consolation: Chimps console distressed individuals, a behavior linked to emotional empathy. Fairness: In experiments, they show anger when treated unfairly (e.g., when another gets a better reward for the same task). Altruism: Bonobos share food with strangers, even without immediate benefit.

You mean primate-humans, right? You don't separate primates from people, do you? All animals on earth are morally responsible and judge for their actions, right?

Elephants show grief, help injured individuals, and participate in cooperative problem-solving. They also react emotionally to the death of others, indicating deep social awareness.

Wolves and dogs rely on cooperation and fairness in the pack. Dogs, through domestication, have become highly attuned to human emotions and show empathy and prosocial behavior.

Dolphins display helping behaviors, social norms, and teaching of young, which may imply some sense of social responsibility.

Once again, instinctive behavior is not premeditative intelligence. Animals don't talk and write about such things, because they don't think about them.

We can learn from animals the value of instinctive action, but they cannot learn from us the ability to think, write, and talk about it.

Nor, can any animal learn from some humans how to do evil, and behave worse than animals, because they are not moral beings.

2 Peter{2:12} But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

only humans have the intelligence to even think of making conclusions based upon physical observations.

False again.

Great Apes (e.g., chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) – Can use tools, recognize patterns, and make predictions based on experience.

Cetaceans (e.g., dolphins, some whales) – Show complex social behaviors, communication, and can solve novel problems.

Elephants – Demonstrate self-awareness, grief, cooperation, and use tools; they can also infer intentions in some contexts.

Corvids (e.g., crows, ravens, jays) – Can reason through problems, use tools, and understand cause-effect relationships.

Parrots (especially African greys) – Show verbal reasoning and categorization skills.

And again, animals don't 'think' about negotiating physical problems, when they do things to survive and gain a natural advantage. They don't go to one another for problem-solving analysis. They don't hold meetings and make plans. Dogs don't play poker.

Much of the Bible is the simple wisdom of what we already know, and it counts anyone a fool that rejects it. Such as some ideologically-challenged humans being inferior to beasts of the field, and bowing down to their 'superiority'...

Correction.

Aren't there people that say they are animals too. And some animals are superior to themselves. If you have a correction for that? What is it?

The creating God is not against the biology He creates.

Then please explain the 4-minute video?

I've gone to enough of these places, where they beat around the bush alot, but never give simple direct evidence. It's all ideology propped up by a pretense of scientific proof.

If you have direct evidence, then just quote it. It doesn't take a 4-minute video or long essay.

The evolution denier can merely shrug their shoulders and state, 'well, that's the way God did it."

Denying human-primate evolution, is not a denying proven biological evolution. It's the human-primate ideologue, that denies he is not teaching proven biological evolution.

Being aware of natural hunger, thirst, pain, comfort, fight or flight, etc... Does not mean dumb brute beasts ponder themselves, and their place in the world.

Your argument continues to be illogical.

Animals not pondering their place in the world, is illogical? To who? Humans pondering what animals they are, and thinking the animals must be doing the same? If a person can do it, then so can an animal?

Further, having the ability to ponder does not equal God's existence.

No one says it proves God is. What it does prove is man's complete separation between man and beast. We can ponder, they cannot. This incompatible separation is the daily direct evidence of Gen 1's self-explanatory statement: that man is created different from all animals on the earth.

That fact is indisputable, and so the reason also given is at least credible and believable: Man is created in God's image.

However, there is no direct evidence at all of any human-primate on earth, and so there can be no credible reason given for something that does not exist: Primate-Human evolution.

Human-primate evolution is a viral ideology, that has attached itself destructively to proven biological evolutionary science. By promoting a false ideology of evolution, scientific evolution is unjustly tainted by association.

Just because humans have the ability to imagine things,

And just because we have the ability to imagine things, and animals cannot, is the uncontested proof that no person can be an animal, and no animal can be a person: We can believe and imagine, they cannot.

The ideological purpose of primate-human evolution is clear: To make humans only animals in the end. And since neither the Bible nor anyone else believes that animals are morally responsible beings judged by their works, then some persons as animals think to escape that judgment by ideological means alone:

Dan 12:2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

does not then make those imagined things true.

Now, this is true. Especially for humans only being animals in the end.

[RBD]

When arguing about Bible teaching, I use Bible chronology. According to the Bible, man has been for about 6000 years on earth. There is no evidence before 4000 B.C. of human civilization.

What about the evidence of human civilization prior to this? Earliest findings place intelligent humans in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco around 300K years ago. And by intelligent, I mean the ability to make tools and campfires.

I'm talking about human civilization. What you refer to is skeletal remains, that some say may be signs of earliest humans. Someone who is disposed to believe something, may therefore believe it. But nothing is proven. Proven evidence is simple and plain. It's not a matter of supposition.

The fact is that australopithecines 'man' is a misnomer based upon a predisposed presumption. No one is denying the existence of the bones, but neither can anyone prove they were evolving 'primate-humans', nor evolved into mankind. 'Human-primate' is an theoretical non-sequitur, because there is no known skeletal remains of a human-primate animal.

There is no skeletal remains of men and women on earth before 6000 years, nor civilizations established by man before 4000 years.

Were there different primate remains with a distant semblance of mankind? Sure. And if they don't exist today, it's because they're extinct. It's not because they necessarily evolved into primate-humans. That is an unproven supposition based upon a preconceived conclusion.

It's the same with the Big Bang being back-azimuthed from an expanding universe of stars. It's a preconceived idea, not proven by direct evidence.

Some say that ancient primates resembling people, had to advance to become people, rather than just become extinct. Some say that expanding stars must have back-tracked to become a state of gas without stars...Neither are proven, but only assumed. And there are some who earnestly desire it to be so, and so say it is so, in order to convince themselves of it. Just like all blind ideologues without provable evidence...

[RBD]

So says some paleontologists, and some say they were primate and not man. Neither of which prove they were living on earth more than 35,000 years ago.

You failed to defend your claim.

All human-primate evolutionists fail to prove their claim. And they also corrupt scientific biological evolution, then they claim to speaking for it.

No one is denying the bones exist. But no one is proving they are primate bones evolving into human-primates. Just because a primate distantly resembles a person, does not mean it was, nor or is a human primate.

The preconceived assumption is that those bones must have evolved into human-primates, since they are not traced to existing primates. Why are they not simply extinct now, along with other primate species?

Without the direct evidence of the 'modern' primate-man, any other primate resembling man is still only a primate and not a man, whether now extinct or present on earth.