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 #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.

You are pointing out we people have similar physical traits as primates. That is not the same as being primates, since primates have no spiritual intelligence as people.

Therefore, if you want to say people are animals, then you must also say animals are people. Do you? Then you are saying animals are people too, because they also have spiritual power to believe, disbelieve, imagine, and even debate such things.

Physical appearance alone does not make one creature another creature. Saying people are animals, and animals are people, is only by ideological belief of people. And it's solely intended to disbelieve the obvious: that people are irreconcilably different from all animals on earth, and so can't be an animal on earth. Our power of spiritual reasonings and freewill decision making, makes us irrevocably separated from all animals on earth. Therefore, it is dishonestly inconsistent to say people are animals, and yet play lip service to people being completely separated from animals by spiritual intelligence and faith.

And we all know the reason for such unreasoned duplicity: To avoid any possibility of believing the Bible, what says we are separate from animals, and not animals, because we are created in the image of the true God of reason and faith. While animals are not at all created in His image.

Zealous disbelievers must blind themselves to the undeniable truth of spiritually intelligent separation between man and beast, just so they can try to convince themselves, that there is no God of faith, that creates all people in His own reasoning image.

2Th 2:10And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

This strong delusion prophesied in the Bible, is for the latter days of mankind ruling on earth. The ideological willingness to believe men are only animals, and so animals are people too, is a relatively modern late-comer of godless humanity. And it's only restricted to the anti-God part of humanity. Even many atheists balk at the accusation that they are only animals. If nothing else, they know they aren't only animals, because they know it, whereas animals can't even know or not know such things...

Hey, I love my poo-poo Roscoe, and he's family too, but he's not a person. (Fortunately, if I had to tell him that, he wouldn't care anyway, since he wouldn't even think to know the difference...)

[RBD]

[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.

New stars born of gas is part of an expanding universe. There is no direct evidence that all stars of the universe began from one place of gas.

If you're only going to argue the discovered fact, of a presently expanding universe with newly created stars from gas, then you get not objection. It's not an argument to argue.

If you want to instead add to the argument at hand, that the universe was once all gas without stars yet created, then show the evidence for it.

If at this point, you don't know the difference between the two arguments, then it's either because you can't understand it, in which case I can't help you. Or, because you don't want to understand it, in which case I won't help you.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #83]

There is no evidence, record, nor observed knowledge of any time, when there was no universe of stars, but only hot gas.

Why must everything always have been as we observe it now?

It doesn't. But without direct evidence it was completely different from now, then any belief in it is just faith, not proven science.

There is no evidence that the present universe was ever a starless mass of gas.

And even if we interpret our level of awareness as divine, why must it be traced to Genesis rather than to some other story of divine origin?

Our level of awareness divine?? I suppose some arguing entirely from your own personal faith, rather than sticking to scientific fact alone, would go off on some mystical tangent like our level of awareness being divine...

Gen 1 is the first chapter of a book. What it says is believable astronomy based upon the present universe, where there is no evidence that it ever was not an expansive universe of stars...If some other book says the same, then I would agree with it too.

Is there?

[Clownboat]

You are pointing out we people have similar physical traits as primates. That is not the same as being primates, since primates have no spiritual intelligence as people.

Humans are primates–a diverse group that includes some 200 species.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/perman ... g-primates

Your denial is noted and I hope you feel better getting this emotional rant out in the open.

Therefore, if you want to say people are animals, then you must also say animals are people.

Your reasoning has failed you.
Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy where someone incorrectly assumes that if a conditional statement is true, and the consequent (the "then" part) is true, then the antecedent (the "if" part) must also be true.

Physical appearance alone does not make one creature another creature.

This is why I accuse you of having an emotional response in place of a rational one. How can one creature be another creature?

Saying people are animals, and animals are people, is only by ideological belief of people.

You have some thinking to correct.
People are animals, this is true, but not all animals are people (some animals are dogs, cats, etc...) See affirming the consequent fallacy above.

And it's solely intended to disbelieve the obvious: that people are irreconcilably different from all animals on earth

We are different, except for where we are the same.
For example:
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

Our power of spiritual reasonings

Please define what power of spiritual reasoning is. It sounds looney to me.

and freewill decision making, makes us irrevocably separated from all animals on earth.

Except for where you have been show we are not separate. See the list above that primates share.

Therefore, it is dishonestly inconsistent to say people are animals,

You have more thinking that needs to be corrected.
Of course, humans are animals!

We’re composed of cells with genetic material, and we move around, seeking energy to feed our bodies, pooping it out again as waste. We look a lot like our fellow primates with our five-digit hands and feet, our thoughtful eyes, and our lean, muscular physiques. We have lungs, a heart, a brain, a nervous system, and all those other features we share with mammals.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human- ... ns-animals

and yet play lip service to people being completely separated from animals by spiritual intelligence and faith.

What the heck is spiritual intelligence. Can you define how you are using these two words?

And we all know the reason for such unreasoned duplicity: To avoid any possibility of believing the Bible,

What are you on about? There are parts of the Bible that can be believed and even some good teachings within the book.

what says we are separate from animals,

Thank you for displaying what happens when you look to religious promotional material in place of a science book.
Science: We are animals. Primates specifically and here is why.
RBD: We are not animals because my preferred religious promotional material says so.
Science: Not to worry, we will educate the next generation of humans and those like you will die off. (This is actually what happened once we discovered that the earth was not at the center of our solar system. Many that got their understanding from religious material denied this new discovery and we had to let them die, while educating the next generation).

because we are created in the image of the true God of reason and faith. While animals are not at all created in His image.

Please show that you speak the truth.

Zealous disbelievers must blind themselves to the undeniable truth of spiritually intelligent separation between man and beast,

Nothing but poisoning of the well. Shame on you.

just so they can try to convince themselves, that there is no God of faith, that creates all people in His own reasoning image.

The gods have nothing to do with the fact that humans are animals, primates specifically.

2Th 2:10And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

I acknowledge your delusion here that humans are not animals. Specifically primates.

This strong delusion prophesied in the Bible, is for the latter days of mankind ruling on earth. The ideological willingness to believe men are only animals, and so animals are people too, is a relatively modern late-comer of godless humanity.

There is so much wrong in these two sentences, but again, humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. Do you know what a cat is? Is it a human?

And it's only restricted to the anti-God part of humanity.

You really need to leave your emotions out of debate. Your justification is just plain silly.
Imagine that I accused you of having an anti-Santa Clause part of humanity. You would probably feel sorry for me, no?

Even many atheists balk at the accusation that they are only animals. If nothing else, they know they aren't only animals, because they know it, whereas animals can't even know or not know such things...

Humans are animals. Primates specifically. We know this.

Hey, I love my poo-poo Roscoe, and he's family too, but he's not a person.

With all the confusion you are displaying here, I'm happy to learn you know that your dog is not a person. Do you know that it is an animal though, canine specifically?

Your denial for religious reasons is noted and I do hope you feel better getting this rant of yours off your chest.

[Clownboat]

New stars born of gas is part of an expanding universe. There is no direct evidence that all stars of the universe began from one place of gas.

There is an entire theory with evidence about just this thing, even if you are not aware of it. Feel free to deny what we do know though.

If you're only going to argue the discovered fact, of a presently expanding universe with newly created stars from gas, then you get not objection. It's not an argument to argue.

If you want to instead add to the argument at hand, that the universe was once all gas without stars yet created, then show the evidence for it.

I doubt you will actually read this, but here it goes:
https://www.uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Fa ... g-Bang.pdf

If at this point, you don't know the difference between the two arguments, then it's either because you can't understand it, in which case I can't help you. Or, because you don't want to understand it, in which case I won't help you.

Slander and poisoning of the well with a mix of another fallacy.
The "false dilemma" or "either/or fallacy" is a logical fallacy where someone presents only two options as if they are the only possibilities, when in reality there are more.

If you prayed to your preferred god concept to help you with debate, do you think we could measure an increase in quality? Perhaps less fallacies and slander and more logical reasoning for your arguments for example? That would truly be something cool to observe and would make many an atheists question the gods I would think.

[Clownboat]

Gen 1 is the first chapter of a book. What it says is believable astronomy

That there was light before stars in not believable, nor that the earth can cease to rotate, nor that a star can remain in the same place in the sky to name a few unbelievable astronomical events from the Bible.

The problem with people assuming they are correct from the start, stops future learning. Those that have picked religious promotional material to assume their knowledge often times see no reason to learn about the Big Bang, evolution, dating methods (for just a few examples) because they think they had the correct understanding from the start. So why would they want to learn more when they believe they already have the answers? Some will even accuse others that have a better understanding of such things as just people that want to disbelieve their specific religious material.

The difference is:
If someone proves the Big Bang as wrong, I lose nothing and have a better explanation to accept.
Same with evolution and our dating methods.

Contrast that with someone trying to protect some eternal soul that must subscribe to specific religious beliefs/material. Such a person has much to lose, a reason to reject better explanations and incentive to not learn about things like the formation of our universe, how life may have began, evolution, dating methods etc...

Therefore, being religious can literally (but not must) prevent learning, and that is sad. Perhaps I'm biased though, because I find history and science fascinating and likely project that on my fellow humans (that they should also be fascinated by such things) when some just don't seem to care.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #91]

Zealous disbelievers must blind themselves to the undeniable truth of spiritually intelligent separation between man and beast, just so they can try to convince themselves, that there is no God of faith, that creates all people in His own reasoning image.

The idea that our bodies are part of the animal world really bothers you, doesn't it?

If you believe that God can make a son of Abraham out of a rock, why do you have such a problem with God making a son of Abraham out of an ape?

Hey, I love my poo-poo Roscoe, and he's family too, but he's not a person. (Fortunately, if I had to tell him that, he wouldn't care anyway, since he wouldn't even think to know the difference...)

What difference?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #92]

New stars born of gas is part of an expanding universe. There is no direct evidence that all stars of the universe began from one place of gas.

The expansion of the universe is itself such evidence; tracing the expansion in reverse puts everything in the known universe together.

Stars are observed forming from gas clouds, and there is no evidence of any stars being formed in any other way.

[RBD]

So, animals are people too?

This is not what I said at all.

Obviously you wouldn't say that, and so you wouldn't say people are animals. Which exposes the whole ideological nature of the argument: Some people are willing to say we are animals, but not willing to say animals are us, which proves it's an ideological statement, not scientifically nor logically consistent.

But, to be more accurate, since you say people are primates, are primates people?

Speciation divides homo sapiens from any other species.

Speciation, is the science of taxonomy, that man began long ago for animals alone. The ideology of including man as a species of animal too, is a relatively new modern perversion of taxonomy.

The propaganda of the ideology, posing as established science, begins with saying people are animals, and so we also need an animal's taxonomical name.

Because no one demoting people into animals, will not also promote animals into people, then it proves it's ideological perversion of scientific taxonomy.

Gen 2 of the Bible confirms the legitimate science of taxonomy, by man naming all the animals, but not naming himself as an animal.

You stated "humans are completely different from all other natural creatures on earth".

Which is base entirely upon the spiritual intelligence of all people, that no animals have. All people are entirely separate from all animals on the earth. People cannot possibly be animals, nor animals be people too, due to that complete separation between people and animals, where all people have spiritual intelligence, and no animal rationally discerns between good and evil. (Primates included)

I'm instead drawing more direct correlation, in that some other species also possess like traits to homo sapiens.

So, assigning an animal name to people, makes people animals? Not. That's ideological indoctrination 101.

Similar physical traits does not make one creature become another. The unpassable gulf between the spiritual traits of man and beast, makes people and animals irrefutably and unchangeably separated. Ours is intelligent, and theirs' is only instinctual.

People cannot be animals, because animals cannot be people, and no amount of intellectual reasoning based upon physical traits alone, can make us animals, since the fact of such unintelligent reasoning alone, proves animals are not people.

When it comes to the topic of "morality", some other species also possess empathy, fairness, cooperation, and even a sense of justice. Do you disagree?

Instinctual self and communal self preservation is not morality. Only man has the spiritual intelligence to act moral or immoral, by choosing to do good or evil.

Gen(3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Man can be as gods on earth, but not animals. And man can even worship animals as gods on earth, but it's a relatively new and modern degeneration for some people to start saying people are animals too. This would certainly be a prime example of, Speak for yourself.

Now, if you ever have verifiable proof, that communal animals do reason and debate among themselves to act according to moral law, then we'll talk about animals being people too.

Natural instinct is not morality, because morality is a judgment of responsibility for actions.

Are the topics of a) empathy, b) fairness, c) cooperation, and d) justice considered natural instinct (or) not?

Cooperation, yes. Empathy, fairness, and justice, no. Any animal can instinctually cooperate in order to hunt, eat, and defend. Only people can have empathy, fairness, and justice, which are only spiritually discerned and if necessary enforced. Animals do not have nor enforce moral law. 'Animal Farm' is only an allegorical book of fiction.

Cut the quick: Only people think about and choose to act by such spiritual judgments, not animals.

Cut again to another quick: If people are animals too, then people can't be judged for our decisions, because no animal is ever judged for behaving instinctually. I.e. all the ideological meandering is false science:

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.

And much of the pretense of scientific cover, is simply to convince some people, that like the animals, they will not be judged for how they live. If any person doesn't want to believe that, then they have the power not to. They don't also have to make themselves an animal. Especially not to make all people animals, for a false sense of security in numbers.

I'm not an animal, and I will be judged by my works. You're not an animal, and you can believe what you want about judgment of works. Which proves you're not an animal, because no animal even thinks about be judged by what they do...

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.

And yet, we have hard evidence that homo sapiens share a direct common ancestry with the great apes. Chromosome #2 is just the beginning of this direct evidence.

Really? That's how much bone link you have? A chromosome's worth?

Chromosome #2 is distinct to people alone. Like similar physical appearance, primates only have nearly identical Chromosome #2. Similar and nearly is not scientific proof. They only work in house shoes and horseshoes. They are similar in name and nearly the same, but a house shoe is never a horseshoe, nor a horseshoe is a house shoe. Nor a chromosome #2 person is a nearly chromosome #2 primate...

Even the chromosome's worth of bone link is only nearly so. So close, yet so far away.

There's also the fact that only people have 23 chromosomes, while all primates have 24. That 24th could be the animal chromosome, that people just don't have.

The ideological purpose of primate-human evolution is clear: To make humans only animals in the end.

Evolutionary biology has no "ideological purpose."

And once again, proven evolutionary biology is not unproven human evolution. Teaching human evolution, as though it's only biological evolution, is dishonest propaganda of ideological social engineers.

Anyone can theorize about human evolution, but anyone one teaching biological evolution as human evolution, are not honest teachers of proven science vs unproven speculation.

Evolutionary biology is instead based upon following the evidence, which leads to facts.

True.

You can pretend you're only teaching proven biological evolution, but instead your only teaching unproven human evolution. And since you purposely try to mesh the two as one and the same, you are crossing the line from science to ideology.

Remember, many Christians accept evolutionary biology as fact, because they are earnest to follow the evidence where-ever it leads, while also still believing in a Jesus as their savior.

Exactly. And so do I. However, I don't at all accept any human evolution. I know the difference between the two, and also when human evolution is propagandized as simple biological evolution. The same for proven universal expansion being falsely taught as the unproven big bang.

[RBD]

There is no skeletal remains of men and women on earth before 6000 years

Yes, there is. "Cheddar Man" is a nearly complete skeleton found in Britain, dating back about 10,000 years. Aurignac skeletons were found in France, with some dating back to 10,000 years. "Kennewick Man" is a 9,000-year-old skeleton found in North America. "Mexico skeleton" was found in an underwater cave, dating to over 10,000 years ago.

You mean cheddar and Kennewick primate. Who says they have to be named Cheddar and Kennewick man? That's an unscientific necessity. Objective science would simply call them what they are: Cheddar and Kennewick remains, that are mostly primate, but also with some distant similarity to human remains. So long as there remains no proof of a human-primate skeleton, then the presumption in naming them 'man', and that they must lead to human beings, is ideological determination, not objective science.

Humans evolutionizing from primates began as an ideological hope, when biological evolution within a species was first proven. It has become ingrained indoctrination to assume any old primate with some likeness to human beings must therefore be leading to a human-primate animal. Therefore, they take the indoctrinated liberty of pre-naming them 'man', before any such human-primate remains are found.

In the meantime, all that is found is old primate bones that have some man-like features, not any human bones with primate-like features.

The only Kennewick men and women we know have existed, are by their human remains in the area;

The fact remains, that there is no time when a primate skeleton becomes skeletally human. Human beings have always been human beings alone, both in bones and in chromosome. There is no direct evidence otherwise. Dittoes for an expansive universe of stars, that has no evidence of ever being anything other than the present universe.

There is direct evidence of primates with similar skeletal remains to human beings, that have either become extinct, or still exist along with us and our own skeletal remains.

nor civilizations established by man before 4000 years.

Some of the oldest Homo sapiens civilizations found are those dating back to around 300,000 years ago, primarily discovered in Africa, including sites in Morocco (Jebel Irhoud) and Ethiopia (Omo-Kibish).

Since homo sapiens is only a pseudo-scientific ideological name, then there is no evidence of human civilization beyond 6,000 years ago.

Ancient primates similar to human beings, is a different question and study. There is evidence of primate-sapiens evolutionizing into modern primates, not any 'homo'-sapiens evolutionizing into human beings. All we have is primate-sapiens with some likeness to human beings.

When we dispense with the ideological indoctrination, then the facts become simple and straightforward. Unless an actual human-primate sapiens is found, then all we have is primate-sapiens becoming primates, and human beings the same as at the beginning.