The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

Disagree. It is random from all views. You are assuming here that different impacting external conditions determine which way evolution turns: this is a subjective random - namely the subject is controlled by external, objective factors, thereby rendering it superfluous or at best - conduitive only, not controlling. And we have not even considered as yet the vlidity and value of the external impacting factors in this scenario. The other premise which makes darwin's evolution random, is its ultimate, potential source - not even addressed by darwin: we have no complexity governing any contrived actions at the foundations - this also makes it absolutely and totally random.I put it to you that there is an absence of logic and credibility here ...

However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect); A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY.

The other issue of 'complexity' is again very wrongly applied by darwin's logic: it is the 'RESULTS', not the process, which determine this complexity - not the proposed links being impacted by external factors. If the result is a car, for example, we cannot allocate its cause to metal being impacted by wind and heat: that is illogical; if the result evidences a complexity - then wind and heat become inapplicable - we have to come up with a MIND - because we know of no phenomenon which can effect a complexity via random - nothing outside of darwin's novella.

Nope. These are constants which cannot be violated. Darwin's evolution contrives around them - unsuccessfully when examined.

This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution...

If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant:'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.

The texts include Isaac requesting his father to bind him securely so he won't move of fear, which is not condusive to a child but an adult mind aware of the situation at hand.

The 37 is derived from calcs of the entire calendar and intergrated dates.

Penholds is the author of MultiVerse and other works of science. To paraphrase him in his interviews and essays, he states that in the foundation of a complex system, there has to be an equavalent structure of complexity which justifies it - basically he negates random to complex.

This does not condone random to complex

There is no contradiction here. Genesis classifies life forms in larger groupings than we do today - this is in the texts. The relevent factor is that genesis does not differentiate modern humans by their skeletal forms, as we do today, but it distinguishes humans by their speech attribute. This is correct - all life forms share skeletal formations - only one displays speech.

The 37 year age is not something I made up - it is part of writings and commentary made 1000s of years ago.

That, coupled with so many other really pathetic arguments (many so bad that creationists tell other creationists not to use them), make me think that “IAMJOSEPH” is an atheist who is intentionally trying to look stupid and pretending to be a creationist just to make creationists look bad. Look, he also made up bible verses about Isaac, and changed the name of his made up “scientist”, and so many other obviously intentional stupid things.If it weren’t for the fact that creationists often do nearly as stupid stuff, I probably would have caught on sooner. How about you, did he have you going too?

You guys are building towers of babel in mid air. The scrolls are regarded the same as today, with no variation in its narratives from the Septuagint or the current OT. I have many links which say this. The discrepencies are allocated to alphabet styles and some differences of sylables, and writings style of scribes, etc. If there were any real differences, there would have been a major consequence.

it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis, but not so with darwin.