Summations Only

I believe he did write the memorial of the event in a book.
And, it might even had been the growing works that would become the Torah by the time he died.If we were pressed to support the argument that the Torah was available in full immediately once they had left Egypt, nwewould be hard pressed to show that the book mentioned in Ex 17:14 was that Torah, since other book were mentioned, too.Was the book, the book of wars?
Is this written in the book of Jasher?Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the warsEdited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

[q]You seem to have a real problem differentiating between cosmological eras and geological eras. [/qs]?Not aat all.Above, I referenced six different Science sources that sum up the Big Bang pretty much in the seven steps which I did.And, below here, I am listing the seven "days" of Genesis compared to the seven references of Science in regard to the History of the Earth: 1. Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era - and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day 2. Early Imbrian evening of the Hadean Era - and the Eoarchean morning of the Archaean Era/ = Second Day3. Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era- and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day4. Neo-proterozoic evening of the Proterozoic Era- and the Cambrian morning of the Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day5. Permian evening of the Paleozoic Era- and the Triassic morning of the Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day6. Cretaceous evening of the Mesozoic Era- and the Tertiary morning of the Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day7. Quaternary evening of the Cenozoic Era- and the Recent Epoch morning of the Common Era/ = Seventh Day

Yes, I agree that science examine the BBT as distinctly separate from what happens Geologically.There are excepts that, like meteoric rocks which draw the attention of our geologists back into time before the Earth solidifies.But the only "connection" we might propose is that the Big Bang beginning was part of a continuum in the History of the Earth/Cosmos that must be included when we read about the Cosmic Evolution reported in Genesis:Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era - [/B] and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day

I think the readers here ought be patient.
They need examine what has been said so far, open mindedly, entertaining a comparison between the actual events recorded in the six major rock layers against what the Bible reports to us about the Cosmic Evolution.For instance, in the Cenozoic era which is the sixth "day" according to Genesis, we did see man created at the very end of an age that was 7 million years ago.
Our Paleontologists today have linked 22 predecessors to our ascent to Modern man, pretty much as the genesis story tells us: Book: The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author) Surely, fair mind people open to seeing a rational connection between the bible and the facts can not easily dismiss this addition support for my theories.

?You dispute the credentals of the cast of paleontolgists who wrote The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.You fossil guys are the people i rely upon here to support with references the things I tell you.This was the latest book on the matter, so I am standing behind this sources as at least placing Gnesis genealogy in he ball park of evolution of modern man.I also point out the hint which assigns those impossible and inordinately long life spans, inferring that these links in our Family Tree are species, not individuals.Then I draw your attention to Gen 5:2 which literally and directly claims that Adam is merely early Hebrew taxonomy for a particular species:
In Gen 5:2, god essentially called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

I think you need read it again.In particular, focus on the Hebrew letters in each case.
You will see that the more mature herbagementioned in Pro 27:25 is a different word that the one above in the Strong "Root Word Etymology.In the very first part of the definition, look at the hebrew spelling which is the actual word used in Gen 1:11, and which mean "the first sprouts of Earth."

hahaaaaa,...Of course the science in the book is a reference I use to make this starling comparison between what people have believed from the Bible about our distant ancestors and what we are just now discovering through the totally unbiased work in Science.The POINT is that the church people are wrong about their medieval Bible interpretations.
They must change their stance against Evolution because they mouth archaic explanations of Genesis invented in times long passed by mere men who were just ignorant of these things then.My hypothesis links 22 species from the Adams through to the three racial stocks of Modern man.
Even that coincides with what we now know about Modern Homo sapiens who appeared 40,000 years after the total extinction of all those other man-kinds during our own "Flood-Out-of-Africa."The Bible is telling a direct correspondence between what actually happened, albeit necessarily couched somewhat in terms that the ancient readers could accept at that time.The Ark that carried all the animals into the Modern World was really inside the skull of Noah, in the form of visions and images stored genetically in his deepest unconscious mind:

The dictionary said "the first sprouts of the Earth," not of seeds.
It is referring to the sprouts of life, as you really know.I am encouraged by your reliance upon lame come backs of little consequence and Ad Homo attacks which always are necessary once one realizes they have not actually proposed any thing that really blocks the main premises side down before them'I usually continue posting in the face of such obvius abdications from my adversaries and assume that lurking readers who have not commented either way are examining our response to one another.What I propse at this point is that we examine Genesis more closely and look for things which are written into the story such as to help me make the case because of more information that fits.One such incident concerns the hybidization between different species of those 22 humanoids in the genealogy.As you know, Genetics has determined that all men living today carry the genes of Neanderthals, which is pretty much stated in the verses below: Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

?I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.Certainly all but one or two rather naive readers would assume that this idea has already been published by a peer reviewed editor.
That would be tantamount to thinking I have been posting accepted knowledge and all this is old hat that only idiots have not yet heard about.Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?

That brings up another confirming fact in Genesis which supports this one-to-one correspondence with the 22 now extinct human species discovered in this Age and the stated 22 eponyms for the links from the first humanoid thru the three sons of Noah:Gen 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred "years" old, (and the Flood will come when Noah is 600 "years" old: Gen 7:6) : and Noah begat Shem, (the Mongoloids), Ham, (the Negroids), and Japheth, (the Caucasians). This evolution took place 100,000 years before the 40,000 year flood out-of-Africa so it ties the Modern Homo sapiens species to the exact dates science recognizes for their appear, or about 150,000 years ago.Both the Bible and science agree here again on the facts.
And, in regard to mention of Race, "well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Richard Dwakins and Geneticist Edwards, who insists that the seven racial differences differentiate over time from these three racial stocks that Lawton first proposed are actually correct:"

True, the facts is that some African people apparently do not evidence Neanderthal genes which suggests that the inbreed took place outside of Africa.
That fact led me to believe that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens actually carry genes common in both of them, but from a hybridization between Early Homo erectus and Modern Homo erectus who then passed these genes on to both us and neanderthal.(see Gen 6:4 above and the diagram)This is merely an idea that occurred to me from study of the literature, but I hope to read someday that the science finds such evidence as difficult as that seems now.Your bias against this is immaterial and irrelevent so knock it off or offer some critical facts.
Any idiot can naysay and do what Eli does.

So you are moving the goal posts such that using science references to support Genesis on a Site called EvC is now a violation of the rules?How convenient to the atheist arguments.Your complaint now is that even my thread must be about science and not religion?You object when it is clear that Genesis states that there were 22 links in the ascent of modern man, and so does the referenced science book?You argue that it becomes confusing to the general reader when I point out that a peer review science book says the same thing, albeit calling these 22 now extinct humans by the term species.I call BS, and censorship, and intellectual dishonesty.Your complaint here is that I am making a case and the best way to respond is to silence me on grounds that I am not using science to support what I argue, but that is the very purpose of my thread.

I disagree with you here.
Below is a referenced contradiction to what you said.
Modern Homo erectus DID mate with African Homo erectus also called Homo egaster or Early Homo erectus.Re:
"The origin of Homo is not clear, but it is very likely that climatic factors played an important role in the evolution of Homo.
At Dmanisi in Georgia, there is an 1.8 million year old Homo erectus skull. This is roughly similar to the start of the ice-ages in Eurasia."It is very likely that brain expansion was largely driven by the unstable climate of Eurasia, which required constant adaptations from their inhabitants.
These selective pressures never existed in Africa.Africa instead acted a lot like a refugee area where larger populations could survive for extended periods of time.
Frequent hybridization between advanced Eurasian Homo erectus and refugee African Homo erectus, i.e.; egaster or early Homo erectus), ensured that Homo evolved larger brains."But the complicated tale in Genesis 6:4 also agrees with what we see was a hybridization between Homo antecessor, (evolved from Egaster) and Modern Homo erectus who hybridized with antecessor as shown in the diagram below: This was the conduit through which both we and Neanderthals gained common genes.Gen. 4:18 And unto (Lucy), Enoch, (Australopithecus afarensis), was born Irad, (a species concurrent with Australopithecus boisei): and Irad begat Mehujael (species concurrent with Australopithecus robustus):
and Mehujael begat (African Homo erectus), Methusael, (or, Homo ("Workman") ergaster, Early Homo erectus):
and (African Homo erectus/egaster, i.e.; Methusael) Methusael, begat Lamech (Homo antecessor, with whom Modern Homo erectus hybrid).Homo ergaster - WikipediaNOTE: Homo erectus - Human Origins Program - Smithsonian Institution humanorigins.si.edu ... Human Fossils Species Early African Homo erectus fossils (sometimes called Homo ergaster) are the oldest known early humans to have possessed modern human-like body ...Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

?
In every case of these 22 "begats" I understand the meaning to be that "wives bore children that were a wholly different species."
In the case of Noah, the three racial stocks were as similar to one another then as are the seven genetic racial classifications we recognize today.Ham, Shem, and Japheth were different in the same ways we are today, all so similar, but easily distinguished from one another.Recent science in Genetics has shown is that one male was the father of every person living today, even those Africans who do not have Neanderthal genes.
And that male forebearer of us all lived @40,000 years ago, just as I claim to be the moment of the great "flood" of Modern Homo sapiens out-of-Africa.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

LOL
In what thread specifically did I NOT post references to scientists?????In what thread specifically did I NOT post references to scientists, to books that have been peer reviewed, to geological Facts with charts, to include six references to science reporters concerning the details of the Big Bang, to a reference that specifically agrees that there have been 22 species of extinct humans etc????Give me one post where I have not specifically made the exact point that science confirms genesis and shown where the science and the Bible agree.Poor losers????Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.