An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[Kababe]

vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.

The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.

Ulale salama

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.

The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.

Ulale salama

The man believes the whole universe is 6,000 years old.  Maybe a day less.  Maybe a day more.  That the only major changes happened over a six day span in the beginning.  That leaves just a few seconds for evolution to do its tricks.

[vooke]

No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God

Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.

Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates

OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.

What about macroevolution contradicts this?

What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?

[vooke]

Sorry,
I came back from a long and rocky drive deep in Murang'a, had a few brushes with death but am cool.

vooke, You went to sleep, I guess, will wait for your answer tomorrow.

The genealogies of Christ, how are you able to estimate time? Are you sure they include every single member in the family tree/no skipped generations? Is the 6,000 years based on the genealogy alone or some other evidence? In any case, even with the 6,000 years, I don't get why macroevolution is incompatible.

Ulale salama

[vooke]

No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God

Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.

Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates

OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.

What about macroevolution contradicts this?

What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?

[RV Pundit]

The bible is mostly a work fiction that you cannot subject to serious thinking or inquiry.

[veritas]

It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.

[RV Pundit]

Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.

Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.

It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.

[Kababe]

No we won't 'say'. Give me an estimate of when Adam was created according to scriptures which I trust you hold in high esteem as the Revealed Word of the Eternal God

Luke 3:23-38King James Version (KJV)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Alternatively, from this genealogy, can we pick dates/years over which some of the earliest individuals mentioned here lived? Do we know when King David reigned? What about when Jacob was in Egypt? Let's focus on Jacob. The next question is what number of years lapsed between Jacob/Isaac/Abraham AND Adam.

Please dig Catholic Encyclopaedia and supply us with approximate dates

OK, so lets say Adam was here 6,000 years ago, according to the math you're about to perform.

What about macroevolution contradicts this?

What scientific evidence is against macroevolution, that is, are you using only the Bible (your interpretation) to refute it?

vooke, I don't need to dig the Catholic encyclopedia. And you are right, I hold the scriptures in the greatest esteem. Here's what I know about jewish genealogies, they would skip generations. Hence, "son of X" may as well be "great great great grandson of X", and "father of X", may as well be "great great grandfather of X", and arrange genealogies depending on the function or purpose of that particular genealogy. 

Hence, Jesus is called "son of David" in St. Mathew and it is St. Mathew's Gospel that gives a genealogy emphasizing his descent from King David. The point is not to list every single ancestor but to provide a blood descent from King David. Similarly, in St. Luke's Gospel, it is emphasized that Jesus is "son of Adam", and hence truly man, and this genealogy emphasizes his blood descent from Adam.

http://jewishroots.net/library/faq/faq_the_genealogy_of_jesus.html

[vooke]

Which is why I aksd for the EARLIEST date we can fix on Adam.
Regardless of how Jews approached Genealogies, Adam can't have been created more than 8,000 years BC, and most certainly stretching all logic not 50,000 BC. So, can we take a liberal 50,000BC to be Adam's creation date?

vooke, I don't need to dig the Catholic encyclopedia. And you are right, I hold the scriptures in the greatest esteem. Here's what I know about jewish genealogies, they would skip generations. Hence, "son of X" may as well be "great great great grandson of X", and "father of X", may as well be "great great grandfather of X", and arrange genealogies depending on the function or purpose of that particular genealogy. 

Hence, Jesus is called "son of David" in St. Mathew and it is St. Mathew's Gospel that gives a genealogy emphasizing his descent from King David. The point is not to list every single ancestor but to provide a blood descent from King David. Similarly, in St. Luke's Gospel, it is emphasized that Jesus is "son of Adam", and hence truly man, and this genealogy emphasizes his blood descent from Adam.

http://jewishroots.net/library/faq/faq_the_genealogy_of_jesus.html

[Kababe]

vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?

Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies  )

Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)

[vooke]

Those who attempt to discredit genealogies do so on dubious reasons which I will not dwelve into. Fact of the matter is the geneologies in the scriptures taken together place Creation week no earlier than 4000 BC

Micro/Macro-evilution are loose terms I have learnt to avoid. SO the question is whether evilution is compatible with Christianity

If Adam was created 50,000 years ago,when did he evolve? Or had he been evolving gradually for millions of years before?

vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?

Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies  )

Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)

[Kababe]

Those who attempt to discredit genealogies do so on dubious reasons which I will not dwelve into. Fact of the matter is the geneologies in the scriptures taken together place Creation week no earlier than 4000 BC

Micro/Macro-evilution are loose terms I have learnt to avoid. SO the question is whether evilution is compatible with Christianity

If Adam was created 50,000 years ago,when did he evolve?

vooke, knowing the approach, nature and purpose of jewish genealogies means any attempt at "calculating" the chronological time-scale based on Biblical genealogies is completely meaningless. The whole claim of a 6,000 year old earth claiming to be based on the Bible is not true. How can anyone begin to claim or "guestimate" without knowing the actual number of Christ's ancestors?

Secondly, as to your experiment, lets say it was 30,000 years. (I had conceded 6,000 years for the sake of moving the discussion forward but you insisted on proving a particular age based on Christ's genealogies  )

Why is macroevolution incompatible with the Bibilia? (I guess you are not interested in the science bit)

What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2

About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.

[vooke]

If Adam evolved from the 'the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him' clearly the literal Adam was not the first man on earth. You have a problem with that?

What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2

About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.

[Kababe]

If Adam evolved from the 'the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him' clearly the literal Adam was not the first man on earth. You have a problem with that?

What dubious reasons? You mean the fact that they take genealogies as they were taken by Jews, they use the language of the jews as they were used by jews and not as a 21st century English-speaking KJV reading literalist would have it? I am also of the mind to link you to an article that shows gaps in the Mosaic genealogies, hence the only way to reconcile it is to assume the Bible has mistakes/errors or to accept that none of those genealogies in the Bible are in any way comprehensive. I don't see how someone can then insist that he has calculated an age from that, it just seems silly. http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2

About Adam, when did he evolve? I don't recall any scientific claim that man has evolved in the past 50,000 years. I would put his evolution between the time he was soil and when God breathed a soul into him. I have no idea how long that time was, though.

vooke, what is your definition for "man"?

[vooke]

Whatever the Bible calls MAN. You have an alternative definition?

vooke, what is your definition for "man"?

[bittertruth]

The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)

Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.

Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.

It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.

[Kababe]

Whatever the Bible calls MAN. You have an alternative definition?

vooke, what is your definition for "man"?

I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".

[Kababe]

The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)

Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.

Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.

It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.

Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.

[vooke]

We don't have multiple definitions of MAN in the scriptures.
Adam was a MAN, Enock was a man, Abraham was a man, Jesus was a man,vooke is a man

Now Evilution tells you that MAN has been around for at least 200,000 years. if Adam was the FIRST MAN, Adam must have been around for not later than 200,000 years ago. Is this sound logical conclusion?

So you have two problems;
1. Fitting Biblical history (not more than 10,000 years by ANY stretch of imagination) of man into 200,000 years of Evilution
2. Explaining how Adam the FIRST MAN brought about your 'original sin' seeing there must have been thousands/millions of his kind BEFORE him necessary for begetting him and evolving him into God's image which was then breathed into becoming a living spirit

I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".