Adam was born how many years ago?

[EndTimes]

I would like to know what he thinks disapproves creation.

He only disproves himself

 

[Noose001]

I asked why then did you think this disproved evolution. After several delays, we finally seemed to reach the idea that there must be a source for all information, and thus we have a paradox of how humans could have learned ANYTHING - including language. But this is a false dilemma, as I’ve explained above. This topic is commonly studied in linguistics and information theory.

Are you looking for the right answers when reading papers written by evolutionists? What do you expect?
Language is a strong evidence against evolution but it is not the only evidence. I’ll repeat for your sake.

1. All species communicate, so intra-species communication must be a trait that the species evolved with
2. Evolution claims that specific traits evolve through mutations and natural selection only

Human language is a specific trait that has no connection with mutations and natural selection so evolution fails in the regard that a specific trait (human language) is acquired through means other than mutations and natural selection.

 

[Noose001]

So in both aspects, this is wrong. The problem is resolved, and it wouldn’t disprove evolution anyway.

Simple logic disproves evolution, again:

If all organisms are of the same species with their parent, there can only be one species in the entire world.

This is a true statement.

 

[Noose001]

I can’t take such an idea seriously without the slightest justification, evidence or even logic.

Of course you wont take it seriously but why can’t you see your failure to justify or your lack of evidence or even logic to support the idea that human language is emergent from natural processes is evidence that it didn’t emerge from natural processes.

Something as simple as the evolutionary development of the sense of smell alone demonstrates this - ie an animal marking its territory with urine.

Good. An animal doesn’t develop ability to smell through mutations and then learn how to smell because the ability to smell = smelling.

The ability to speak is not equal to speaking, therefore evolution fails.

Human language is a behavior

No it’s not.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The reason people believe the genealogies are “incomplete” is because the genealogies of Matthew & Luke skip some generations from the Old Testament. But even “if” some generations are skipped in the OT, it wouldn’t matter, because it records how old the “father” was (even if it was a grandfather, etc) when he had his “son” (or “grandson” etc). So, it wouldn’t affect how many years elapsed between Adam & Jesus.

The only reason to entertain secular historical claims of humanities existence is to put our faith in an anti-God, anti-Bible source, like the theory of evolution which its goal is to eliminate the authority of God & His Word. If the Bible supports a 6000+ year human genealogy, then that is how old it is. No reason to doubt it.

 

[EndTimes]

I’m confused by the insults and ramblings.

Since there’s no insults - it’s the mis-perception leading to the confusion?

 

[Noose001]

But we know language emerged from natural processes. Animals communicate. Human language has changed and developed.

How? Any evidence?

Moving on.It is not a hard thing to know that evolution is a myth.

If all organisms are of the same species with their parent, there can only be one species in the entire world.

 

[Noose001]

Refuted as follows: Speciation is not transitive.

If organism A can have offspring with organism B, and organism B can have offspring with organism C, it is not necessarily true that organism A can have offspring with organism C.

This is evolution 101. Your criticism is invalid.

This is almost the funniest thing ever recorded.

If A can have an offspring with B, that means A and B belong to the same species
If B can have an offspring with C, that means B and C belong to the same species

Overall outcome, A/B/C MUST be members of the same species. Evolution refuted by its own explanation.

Your only option is to accept that at some point in time, organisms brought forth organisms of a different species than themselves. Let’s discuss this foolishness too.

 

[Noose001]

No it doesn’t. You do not understand evolution. Speciation is NOT transitive.

I’m just using your own explanation

If organism A can have offspring with organism B, and organism B can have offspring with organism C, it is not necessarily true that organism A can have offspring with organism C.

Again, if A can have an offspring(viable) with B - A and B belong to the same species
If B can have an offspring(viable) with C- B and C belong to the same species
So A/B/C belong to the same species.

So is it true that if all organisms share the same species with their parent(s) then there should be one species in the entire world?

 

[Pattylt]

So is it true that if all organisms share the same species with their parent(s) then there should be one species in the entire world?

Please use your reasoning for donkeys and horses. Or ligers from lions and tigers…are lions and tigers the same species? How about dogs and wolves? Are they the same species?

 

[Noose001]

Please use your reasoning for donkeys and horses. Or ligers from lions and tigers…are lions and tigers the same species? How about dogs and wolves? Are they the same species?

Viable offspring, otherwise evolution would stop on its tracks.

You only have 2 options:

1. All organisms bring forth offspring of the same species which would mean that there should be one species in the world
2. At some point organisms brought forth offspring of a different species.

Choose one, lets discuss

 

[Pattylt]

At some point organisms brought forth offspring of a different species.

While it can happen in one generation, it usually takes many thousands for as pieces to be completely different from its great, great…great grandparents. Most speciation are small incremental changes the result in a new species. We have multiple lines of evidence that this has happened. It’s the usual way it does happen. Do you at least understand this? You can of course object to it but do you understand how these various evidences show new species from older generations? Or, do you claim it must always happen with parent to child?

 

[Noose001]

While it can happen in one generation, it usually takes many thousands for as pieces to be completely different from its great, great…great grandparents.

Wherever you’ll draw the line you’ll be separating parent(s) from the offspring, but there’s no such thing.

 

[EndTimes]

pparently it’s possible to trace Adam’s offspring to Jesus in a way that we can discover that Adam was created in about 6000-4000 B.C.

The problem is that we know that humanity has existed for much longer than that.

Perhaps the genealogies are incomplete. Maybe the genealogies only shows the important people. I don’t know.

What do you think?

When you take a day as a 24 hr day… you’re introducing presumptions…

It’s better to get to know Jesus to the best of your ability.

 

[Pattylt]

Wherever you’ll draw the line you’ll be separating parent(s) from the offspring, but there’s no such thing.

Are you identical to your parents? You have your own unique mutations that neither of your parents have. And your children will not be identical to you and your spouse. And on it goes. For thousands of years. One day, our great great…great grandchildren may no longer be genetically compatible with where we are tight now. Natural selection will still be at work and we will be the ancient ancestors that our greats…grandchildren will consider another species. It isn’t predictable. It isn’t guaranteed but it’s not the first time our lineage has done this.

 

[Noose001]

Are you identical to your parents?

No. I’m a mixture of my mother and father. The difference doesn’t come through mutations but the mixing. There’s DNA proof reading mechanism whose sole purpose is to prevent mutations.

One day, our great great…great grandchildren may no longer be genetically compatible with where we are tight now. Natural selection will still be at work and we will be the ancient ancestors that our greats…grandchildren will consider another species.

This is speculative.
If the greats…grandchildren will consider us another species, will their immediate parents consider us another species? See, we have to draw a line at some point and wherever we draw the line, we have to separate parents and their offspring.

 

[Pattylt]

See, we have to draw a line at some point and wherever we draw the line, we have to separate parents and their offspring.

Look at this color graph. Zoom in on it. Where does red become orange? Where does blue become purple? Can you draw a line?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Noose001]

Look at this color graph. Zoom in on it. Where does red become orange? Where does blue become purple? Can you draw a line?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

No but there’s a very clear distinction between us and our cousin the chimp, a boundary line that can never be crossed.

 

[Pattylt]

No but there’s a very clear distinction between us and our cousin the chimp,

Yes, there is…now.

Go back to our common ancestor with the chimp and when two different paths to today occurred. The small incremental steps of thousands of years building upon each step to lead to us and chimps. That common ancestor was a line…that branched…and each branch led to either chimps or us.

I know I’m wasting my breath here. I’ll just end this with …we have the evidence. Any other hypothesis should explain the evidences we have as good or better than evolution. All you seem to have is the word NO. I can’t discuss NO. Give me an alternate hypothesis that includes the evidences and I’ll listen.

 

[buffalo]

Why Genesis is Truly History - Hebraist Steve Boyd​