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...)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #297]

There is no direct evidence----or even indirect evidence----that there was planetary vegetation before there were stars.

Then don't believe it. So long as there is no evidence against vegetation by a light not of stars, then I'll continue to believe it.

So long as there is no evidence against the goddess Nu Kua fashioning the first humans from clay, will you continue to believe it? (I assume that you believe this, since there's no evidence against it.)

[bluegreenearth]

It is frustrating to engage with a theist who appears to be either incapable of distinguishing unfalsifiable claims from falsifiable claims or is unwilling to do so. For the theist to treat an unfalsifiable claim the same as a falsifiable claim on account of its disconfirming evidence being unavailable or missing is to commit a reasoning error. The theist needs to acquire an appreciation for the fact that supporting evidence or the lack of disconfirming evidence only functions to justify belief in falsifiable claims, not unfalsifiable claims.

[Jose Fly]

And so, we have common ancestry with yeast, bacteria, and flies. All this proves is what is already known: All natural flesh and living matter on earth is made of the same substance: Dust. The commonality of all natural mortal life forms, is not a common ancestry between different classes of species, not man with beasts of the field.

There is no proven match specific to humans and any other animal on earth.

That's literally the opposite of what the data I posted shows, and all you've done above is reply "Nuh uh", apparently expecting folks to go with your empty gainsaying over the actual data.

When that which is specific to humans, whether blood, seed, or 2000 'Alus', are ever specific to any animal, then we have a match. Once again, 'related' and 'sharing' in part does not make all parts the same.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you even understand the material I posted?

No one is denying the shared similarities between humans and all animals on earth, so far as having natural mortal bodies and biological systems. But, so long as there is no match between any human and animal, then no human is an animal. It's observable sense, as well as scientific comparison studies, that humans are not animals today. That is not a question.

Again, this is nothing more than "Nuh uh", which is on the level of elementary school playgrounds. Are you able to do better?

The only question for evolution of one class of animal having common ancestry with another class, as well as humans with primates, is some time in the past, where there was a match between them. Rather than some commonality of all life forms on earth, where is the specific ancestral match from which sprang fishes and birds, reptiles and mammals, or humans and primates along different evolutionary paths. Otherwise, all we ever have is an abundance of similarities study between two separate paths that never intersect.

That's complete garbled nonsense. Try again.

Origin of species by evolution is never proven for any supposed separation of a whole class of species from another presently separated class. Origin of species by creation of each class independently, also not proven scientifically, still remains sensible.

Same thing....that makes zero sense and bears no resemblance to anything in biology or taxonomy.

Of course, the problem with the whole argument, is that no such paternity test will show in court a primate parent of a human person, nor vica versa.

Well duh. That's like saying the genetic test showing that I come from German ancestry can't be accurate because it didn't show that I had parent from Germany.

If you don't understand that point, you're waaaaaay over your head here.

The whole search for past skeletal matches has continued to fail. The same for genetic, biological, DNA, 'Alus', etc...Simply give the parental match from which humans sprang from any animal.

Says who? You? Seriously....why do you think anyone would believe all that merely because you say so?

Continued similarities today only conclude continued similarities that don't match. In that regard, all naturally living organisms and physical creatures on earth have the common similarity of dust and mortality.

Darwin's dilemma of no evidence, where evidence ought be to prove origin of species by evolution, is simple: There's no there, there. Creation remains the simplest and most sensible means of new creatures appearing on earth, that have no present nor past match.

All of the scientific efforts to resolve the dilemma with direct evidence, whether in skeletal remains or biological comparisons, have only continued to result in similarities of paths, but not match to diverge from. Evolution exists within a species once formed, but not for origin of species.

Same thing....I, nor anyone else, is going to take any of that as true just because you say so, especially given the bizarre nonsense you've posted in this thread.