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...)

[POI]

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.

You've already lost the fight here.... Evolutionary theory is not the same as someone saying, "I have this "theory" I would like to run by you'. Please look into the difference(s), as to what the term (scientific theory) means, verses your version of it instead meaning, as an (educated guess or a hunch). Once you get this part straight, maybe we can address the rest of your baseless claim(s) from the OP?

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Why did Jesus create Godzillas and Rodans? Why did Jesus create a cratered moon? Why did Jesus spit in the eyes of a blind beggar? These are strange things to ponder, but to say science has no evidence and only the Bible has evidence, is stranger still.

[Difflugia]

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another

First, we have no direct evidence of any gods, let alone yours in particular, so we can't say that we have direct evidence that God did anything at all. Second, you're trying to conflate the state of things today with a presumed state "in the beginning." If you get to claim "the stars moving around" as evidence for your "in the beginning" claim, then surely scientists may extrapolate the measured movements of heavenly bodies back to their own, much more detailed and robust "in the beginning" explanation.

It looks like you've made absolutely no effort to create any kind of logical construction. Even if there's a valid argument that could be presented, yours as it stands is no more than special pleading: you simply refer to the biblical creation myth as a fact while asserting that the scientific model isn't one. Do better.

[RBD]

What must first be understood about the theories of the Big Bang and human evolution (other than being stated only as theories, never as fact by direct evidence), is that they are theoretic events, not processes. They are events theoretically extrapolated from other known physical processes.

The Big Bang event is projected backward as the beginning of a presently expanding universe of stars. Human evolution event is projected alongside biological evolution within a specific species. Neither of the events, however, are proven by direct evidence, and so are never stated as fact, but only as theory.

Arguing the Big Bang is not the same as arguing universal expansion, nor is human evolution the same as biological evolution. Expansionism and evolutionism are proven sciences, but the Big Bang and human evolution are only theoretical projections without direct evidence. Neither the Big Bang nor human evolution are needed by universal expansion and biological evolution to be scientific fact.

First the Big Bang:

1. An expanding universe of stars does not mean they had to begin from one place, called the Big Bang, for which there is no direct evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence, that the universe of stars could not begin as the expanse that it is, from which it is presently expanding even further apart.

2. The fact that new stars have been and are still newly born, proves first that the present expansion is not only of the beginning stars. And second, it proves that stars begin set apart from one another, not from the same place. This is further direct evidence of Gen 1, that stars are born and begin set apart from one another, not beginning from the same place.

Human evolution:

1. Just as with the Big Bang and universal expansion, there is no direct evidence of any evolutionary event between species, as there is within a specific species.

2. With scientific evolutionary fact, there are no 'missing links' within a species, but only as yet undiscovered pieces of an otherwise whole puzzle, or flakes from a finished painting. However with human evolutionary theory, there is no link from ape to man. There is no finished product of ape-man. The missing link between ape and man is not just an incidental piece or flake, but is a co0mpletely separated line between different paintings.

Conclusion: There is no direct evidence of the Big Bang theory of all stars born and beginning from one place, nor of human evolutionary theory of any man born of an ape, nor an ape becoming man. Speaking of great lengths of time to mutate, does not exclude provable single events of mutation.

[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.

You've already lost the fight here.... Evolutionary theory is not the same as someone saying, "I have this "theory" I would like to run by you'.

Evolutionary science isn't, but human evolutionary theory is. Even as universal expansionism isn't, but a Big Bang theory is.

Since the former are proven science by direct evidence, and the latter are only extrapolated guesses without any direct evidence, then arguments between them must separate proven science from unproven theory..

Please look into the difference(s), as to what the term (scientific theory) means,

Dittoes. Scientific expansionism and evolution is not taught as theory, but fact. The Big Bang and Human evolution are taught as theory, not fact.

This is why Gen 1 is different from the Big Bang and human evolution, in that the former is stated as fact, not the latter. So, that only Gen 1 can be a factual argument based upon direct evidence, while the others are only theories, that cannot be factually argued by any direct evidence..

Gen 1 does not argue against the scientific facts of universal expansion nor evolutionary science.

Creating all the stars set apart in great expanse in the beginning, does not prevent their present further expansion. Creating primates on earth, and man and woman in God's image in the beginning, does not prevent evolutionary biological changes within primates, nor within men and women. That's why there are many different primates in size and color, as well as many different men and women in size and color, but people are still people, and apes are still apes.

There are no specific events of people born of apes, nor of apes becoming people. Biological evolutionary mutations within a species, may have an incidental piece missing from a wholly painted picture, but there is no whole one picture of any ape-man. There's an evolutionary picture of primates, and that of man, that are always separated from one another.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Why did Jesus create Godzillas and Rodans? Why did Jesus create a cratered moon? Why did Jesus spit in the eyes of a blind beggar? These are strange things to ponder, but to say science has no evidence and only the Bible has evidence, is stranger still.

Yes, that would be seriously strange.

What's not strange is how some people can get things they don't like, so completely wrong, that it can't be by accident. And so, trying to correct them is a foolish waste of time.

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Why did Jesus create Godzillas and Rodans? Why did Jesus create a cratered moon? Why did Jesus spit in the eyes of a blind beggar? These are strange things to ponder, but to say science has no evidence and only the Bible has evidence, is stranger still.

Yes, that would be seriously strange.

What's not strange is how some people can get things they don't like, so completely wrong, that it can't be by accident. And so, trying to correct them is a foolish waste of time.

I never said I disliked anything. Elaborate.

Why is debating a foolish waste of time?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #6]

Every single species alive is a "transitional species" in a sense. If you were to go to the future, and unearth homo sapien fossils, and later primates you could call that a "transitional fossil" because it shows transitional features linking these groups.

Your entire pushback is just one giant strawman argument. Regardless of whether you would actually believe it or not, you clearly do not understand what evolutionary biology even teaches. Please demonstrate that you know what evolutionary biology proposes, and then, and only then, can you wage pushback against it if you still wish. Until then, tata, I have no time for such alternative fallacious rhetoric.

[Perspectivo]

RBD wrote
1. An expanding universe of stars does not mean they had to begin from one place, called the Big Bang, for which there is no direct evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence, that the universe of stars could not begin as the expanse that it is, from which it is presently expanding even further apart.

The expansion denotes expansion, nothing more. Science discovered the expansion, ergo it posits theories about it. Christians learned from science that the universe is expanding, ergo theologians posit theories about it.

RBD wrote
2. The fact that new stars have been and are still newly born, proves first that the present expansion is not only of the beginning stars.

The entire universe is expanding. Science doesn't say only the old bits of the universe are expanding, but not the new bits! Why would you even think this way? Of course new stars are part of the expanding universe.

RBD wrote
And second, it proves that stars begin set apart from one another, not from the same place.

Science doesn't say all stars start from the same spot!. Galaxies wouldn't exist if that were the case. Why would you even think this way?

RBD wrote
This is further direct evidence of Gen 1, that stars are born and begin set apart from one another, not beginning from the same place.

Genesis 1 doesn't say stars don't begin from the same place. In fact it says the opposite! Literal translation: God made two the big lights. The bigger light reigned the day, the smaller light reigned the night, and also the stars, 1:16. All of this is in the same place, birkia hashamayim in hammered sky, 1:14.



You misunderstand the Big Bang. Science doesn't say all stars start from the same spot! You're trying to argue with something nobody even believes!

You misunderstand Genesis 1. It doesn't say God continuously expands the universe with the addition of newly created galaxies. It says God created everything in 6 days and took Saturday off.