Summations Only

Of course I did respond to that question.But this thread is not about providing evidence that Adam was Sahefanthropus tchadensis.Science History of the Earth enumerates and refers to evidence that science already accepts, while Genesis states what the Bible has long said.I am merely comparing the two lists.Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.Science does NOT refute Genesis.WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?

Of course he is, IF his #2 chrosmosome is fused.But the issue of this thread is that:Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.Science does NOT refute Genesis.WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES? Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Now you fellows are back on track.It YOUR job to produce evidence that Genesis contradicts Science, not mine.Science does NOT refute Genesis, is my point here.Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.Science does NOT refute Genesis.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?

I was responding to Percy's reminder that he is a Moderator.
The implication obviously was that he might otherwise censor me but for the fact he was in the converstaion.Otherwise, I agree and have welcomed the opposing comments and arguments.

No.
No one does.But my claim is that Scientists at this moment consider the first hominoid to be Sahefanthropus tchadensis, while Genesis states the first man was Adam.Do you have any evidence that this wrong?????Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Each of these items are listed as the chronology of events in the History of the Earth which can be seen in descriptions of the Seven "Days" of Genesis when compared to the History locked in the Geological Eras.I pointed out in this thread those specific comparison so it remains for detractors here to show evidence against what Genesis reports.

But now you are worse off then before if your understanding of Genesis is refuted by the very Truth that is Christ and by a belief in some ancient minister who set down the nonsense of YEC and anti-science explanations of the Bible during the Dark Ages.You now hold Faith in his explanations, not the actually bible verses I refer you to.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

1 Hmmm....
I believe in every case I have been saying that there are CORRESPONDENCES between what science tells us today and Genesis actually says.In the case of Adam in Genesis and the scientists who claim this ape/man as the missing link, I see the correspondence.2 The list supports that Genesis says things which correspond closely enough to what Sceince says today such that Science does not refute it.This correspondence which I have set down, between the events of each "day" of the seven durations, that correspond to the geological history of the earth is the basis for the opening post.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Yes, before the summation let's review Gen 1:1 first, then we can read each verse and explain what it says.I will place the explanations I understand to be literally valid in brackets so you can see what Theistic Evolutoon believers understand the verse to me, scientificlly and academically in the ligtht of today's knowledge. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted ofSeven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which was yet to congeal into a spherical planet) earth.(Gen 1:1)
Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting NOW YOU POST WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS:

So why not choose the one which supports Genesis, the Bible, and God then?

So then we agree this correponds to the Big Bang Beginning then.So what is the problem?Now Gen 1:2 clearly means that the Earth was void of a shape hence the Hadan Era has not yet begun:The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form: Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not valid as a sphere yet- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])Word: EDA = void
Pronounce: bo'-hoo
Strong: H922
Orig: from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void.Genesis 1:2No problem again between Genesis and science....Or do you differ with the clear meaning of the verse?

Of course I am.I have only heard you people who want to characterize it differently insist yiu are correct and the Theistic Evolution reader is wrong.God says he created the Plant Kingdom first, then a few "days" later, he creates the Animal Kingdom.That is correct for readers who understand that God utilized Evolution to carry this out.
TE readers realize that God created "the first sprouts on Earth" and all the plants, trees, seeds, flowers evolved from that first Spontaneous Generation.Haven't you read this before??????
What is so hard to understand when we KNOW god used evolution as his "tool?" Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Oh,... good.
I welcome your intellectual freedom here and the free flow of ideas then.You still confuse the issue however.The thread is whether Genesis has a correspondence with the EVIDENCE that science produces.Can you get your head around that?
Genesis says stuff, which when it is read properly corresponds with the evidence that science has presented.There is a correspodence between the Geological Record of the History of the Earth and the corresponding seven long durations, (i.e., yowm, the Hebrew meaning for day is duration).

You have absolutely no science to support the claim that the fusion had no effect or that there was no "no stark difference between the point when the fusion first happened" regardless of how many times your side might point out that nonosense.What we DO KNOW scientifically, is that:"As it turns out Chromosome number 2 in Humans was once two different chromosomes that were fused together. "AND..."Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans... "What part of "common,"..... "common descent"... "of HUMANS" don't YOU understand????

A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light, and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe). Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.And that was the Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era - and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era = First Day