Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists

[sfs]

I would have thought the third would be partly to do with God speaking in lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.

But then as you say it's not really my place to say one way or the other, that's just the understanding I currently have I do not put any stock into it.

I have no problem with speculating, as long as we all realize how likely we are to miss the mark.

 

[elopez]

First, thanks for your response. Nonetheless, your answer is skirting the issue. the origin of our world IS found in scripture in no uncertain terms...but evolution is not found even as a possible explanation.

Scripture only states there was an origin. I do not believe it says how long ago it happened. Evolution does not need to be found in Scripture.

It should be obvious without asking: All the Christians taught by the apostles believed in the six day creation just as Moses revealed it in Genesis and Jesus confirmed all that Moses said. AND, those church fathers who followed in their footsteps believed what they learned from John, Peter, Paul, etc. with but rare exceptions:

Early Church Fathers Believed in Young Earth Recent Creation

I do not think Moses revealed a literal interpretation, nor did Jesus advocate such an interpretation. You can say that early church fathers did, which is obviously true, but to imply Jesus advocated it is a stretch. I do not think Paul teaches creationism either. That is even more of a stretch.

You skirted the question again. The question is 'why would God wait until Darwin' to educate His people of the 'whole truth about origins'?

Were the people of Bible times too stupid or ignorant to grasp what the 'mighty intellects' of neo-Darwinians think they now understand?

You're missing the point. There was pre-Darwin work on evolution, so people were being educated then too about our origins. So, your question is invalid.

All the tools and other various things used in regards to evolution, I think, would have baffled people of Biblical times. I'm sure you don't know any of the science behind evolution, so imagine back then when the idea had not even been thought of.

Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic. I am distressed with those who tossed out six-day creation teaching of the Bible even though God has made it abundantly clear that He meant what He said with dozens of references in both the O.T. and the N.T. that Moses account was historical and not a myth nor a storybook tale.

I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. There are many inconsistencies with a literal reading that make it all hazy.

Also, regardless of the symbolic way I view the creation account, I still think of it as historical, as in, I still think God created the universe and earth. Either way the creation account is, I would say, considered a myth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is false or untrue. It is simply a theological fact, depicted in poetic terms.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Martyrs44 / Kirkwhisper: I've often seen YECs argue against atheistic evolution for obvious reasons, but is there some particular reason theistic evolution is your particular bugbear? Atheists getting too clever? )


To answer your questions (which have already been answered anyway ...)

1. There is no scripture which gives reference to evolution, nor is there any scripture which gives references to gravity, the shape of the Earth, the number of stars and planets, quantum physics, germ theory or much else involving science either.

2. I cannot name any 1st century church fathers, but St. Augustine wrote "A Literal Interpretation of Genesis" all the way back in the begining of the 5th century. Here is an excerpt from his book: link

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
​

3. Probably because it has nothing to do with our salvation. Incidently, an albeit very rudimentary theory of evolution dates all the way back to the Greek philosopher Anaximander of Miletus (610 - 546 BC).

--------------------------------------------

Now, in return could you answer these questions:

1. Can you give a scripture from God's Word that says the universe is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old?

2. Can you name any 1st century Christians who believed the Earth revolved around the sun or that disease was caused by living organisms too tiny to see with the naked eye or any scientific theory in the last few centuries? (Gluadys has already brought up this point)

3. Why did God Almighty give so many different answers to different groups of Jews and Christians who all believed in a literal intrepretation of Genesis?

 

[Assyrian]

God told you explicitly in over a dozen passages that every living creature reproduces 'after it's kind'. So why don't you believe Him?

Where does the bible say every living creature reproduces after its kind?

 

[gluadys]

Scripture only states there was an origin. I do not believe it says how long ago it happened. Evolution does not need to be found in Scripture.


I do not think Moses revealed a literal interpretation, nor did Jesus advocate such an interpretation. You can say that early church fathers did, which is obviously true, but to imply Jesus advocated it is a stretch. I do not think Paul teaches creationism either. That is even more of a stretch.

No, it is not obviously true. Right in the New Testament itself, there are many allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament and the emphasis on allegory as the key to understanding scripture continued right into early modern times. A strong opposition to allegory only showed up with the advent of the Scottish Common Sense school of thought in the 18th century.

Scottish Common Sense Realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Martyrs44]

(Martyrs44 / Kirkwhisper: I've often seen YECs argue against atheistic evolution for obvious reasons, but is there some particular reason theistic evolution is your particular bugbear? Atheists getting too clever? )


To answer your questions (which have already been answered anyway ...)

1. There is no scripture which gives reference to evolution, nor is there any scripture which gives references to gravity, the shape of the Earth, the number of stars and planets, quantum physics, germ theory or much else involving science either.

2. I cannot name any 1st century church fathers, but St. Augustine wrote "A Literal Interpretation of Genesis" all the way back in the begining of the 5th century. Here is an excerpt from his book: link

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
​

3. Probably because it has nothing to do with our salvation. Incidently, an albeit very rudimentary theory of evolution dates all the way back to the Greek philosopher Anaximander of Miletus (610 - 546 BC).

--------------------------------------------

Now, in return could you answer these questions:

1. Can you give a scripture from God's Word that says the universe is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old?

2. Can you name any 1st century Christians who believed the Earth revolved around the sun or that disease was caused by living organisms too tiny to see with the naked eye or any scientific theory in the last few centuries? (Gluadys has already brought up this point)

3. Why did God Almighty give so many different answers to different groups of Jews and Christians who all believed in a literal intrepretation of Genesis?

Stop referring to me as 'Kirkwhisper' and you will get a direct answer. I can answer all three with no problem.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Stop referring to me as 'Kirkwhisper' and you will get a direct answer. I can answer all three with no problem.

Fair enough, but I'm not typing out by post again. I suspect I won't get a direct answer though.

 

[Martyrs44]

Scripture only states there was an origin. I do not believe it says how long ago it happened. Evolution does not need to be found in Scripture.

It does far more than that. I for one have listed the many references that verify the six day creation of the world by God through Moses in the ten commandments and the verification of Jesus family lineage all the way back to Adam (Luke 3). With all of the other references verifying the historical nature of Genesis there is no question that Genesis is literal and historical both.

I do not think Moses revealed a literal interpretation, nor did Jesus advocate such an interpretation. You can say that early church fathers did, which is obviously true, but to imply Jesus advocated it is a stretch. I do not think Paul teaches creationism either. That is even more of a stretch.

That is an outrageus untruth that you cannot verify with any fact of scripture. But I can verify his teaching of creation as given in Genesis:

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

Oh, yes but he did reveal a literal history of Genesis.

You're missing the point. There was pre-Darwin work on evolution, so people were being educated then too about our origins. So, your question is invalid.

No, I am not missing the point. You are. Most of the world knew nothing about evolution until Darwin popularized it with his work in 1859. If you doubt this then give me the name of any of our countries forefathers that believed in evolution. Give the name of any well know pre-Darwin theologian who believed in evolution: Adam Clarke? No. Matthew Henry? No. Calvin? No. Luther? No. Thomas Goodwin? No. etc.

So it is you who is missing the point. But then what else could you do to defend your position but try to turn things around on me and lay such a charge at my doorstep?

All the tools and other various things used in regards to evolution, I think, would have baffled people of Biblical times. I'm sure you don't know any of the science behind evolution, so imagine back then when the idea had not even been thought of.

Baloney. Get your pocket calculator and turn to Genesis 5 and proceed from there throughout the O.T. with all the ages/times given. God did not waste paper and ink giving us those times and ages. But perhaps you think He did.

I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. There are many inconsistencies with a literal reading that make it all hazy.

Oh, yes it is. God Almighty did not trick us with a different manner of creation than what He plainly inspired Moses to write in Genesis only to inform us through an infidel like Darwin in the late 19th century the real truth.

Also, regardless of the symbolic way I view the creation account, I still think of it as historical, as in, I still think God created the universe and earth. Either way the creation account is, I would say, considered a myth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is false or untrue. It is simply a theological fact, depicted in poetic terms.

Your 'symbolic' view is wrong. Consideration of Christ's family tree ought to be enough for you...that is if you understand the implications of the legality required of that lineage in order for Him to be heir to the throne of David. Apparently that all-important-necessity means little to you.

 

[samaus12345]

Darwin married his cousin and had multiple inbred kids that died. Dawkins was molested as a kid (presumably by a catholic priest) i always knew his motivation had nothing to do with science

 

[Keachian]

Calvin? No.

He didn't actually believe in evolution but he did write this:
"The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height."

After reading this I'm not sure he would have minded the common Theistic Evolutionary stance that in the Genesis accounts God is talking down to his people, in fact that's exactly what he's saying.

Let's go with a similar quote from Augustine as well:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[Keachian]

Darwin married his cousin and had multiple inbred kids that died. Dawkins was molested as a kid (presumably by a catholic priest) i always knew his motivation had nothing to do with science

Both have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of any of their ideas.

 

[Martyrs44]

Fair enough, but I'm not typing out by post again. I suspect I won't get a direct answer though.

Direct answer: (1) Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mr 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so...: or, that they may be}
Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

Hebrews 1:
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Don't even attempt to tell us these verses don't teach six-day creationism because the Jews had no belief nor knowledge of the teaching of evolution. The Talmud verfies that.

Quote: "The Talmud says, “Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. . . . it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.”Shachter, J., Freedman, H. and Epstein, I., Talmud: Sanhedrin, The Soncino Press, London, 97a and 97b, 1987

Direct answer: (2). Every single one of them. The proof is in the statements written by those who followed in the footsteps of Peter, Paul, John, Luke, etc. I posted that documentation above. Did you see it?

Direct answer: (3) God did not wait for Darwin to come along in 1859 to reveal the real truth about the creation. He didn't need one who had rejected His word to bring out what actually happened, nor did He deliberately obscure or couch the language in Genesis concealing His actual method of the origin and development of man through history. This is just common sense.

 

[Martyrs44]

Both have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of any of their ideas.

Oh, yes it does. God did not use an immoral scripture rejecting man to bring us the truth of His creation. He used Moses.

 

[Keachian]

Oh, yes it does. God did not use an immoral scripture rejecting man to bring us the truth of His creation. He used Moses.

Seriously? Our prophets are not sinless, if you want a religion that claims that of their prophets go to Islam. God's grace is enough that we get scripture.

 

[Martyrs44]

Seriously? Our prophets are not sinless, if you want a religion that claims that of their prophets go to Islam. God's grace is enough that we get scripture.

I thought you said this was all irrelevant?

So why are you still posting here?

DARWIN was not God's instrument of truth; Moses was.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Martyr44: Thanks for the answers.

Direct answer: (1) Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mr 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so...: or, that they may be}
Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

Hebrews 1:
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Those all say that God created the world - which I don't think anyone here will disagree with - but don't tell us how old the universe actually is.

Don't even attempt to tell us these verses don't teach six-day creationism because the Jews had no belief nor knowledge of the teaching of evolution. The Talmud verfies that.

Quote: "The Talmud says, “Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. . . . it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.”Shachter, J., Freedman, H. and Epstein, I., Talmud: Sanhedrin, The Soncino Press, London, 97a and 97b, 1987

I think you're mistaken. Here the Talmud is not saying the world is 6,000 years old - it's saything that the world will exist for 6,000 years and the final "sabbath" millenium will bring the age of the Earth to 7,000 years old.

According the the Jewish calender we are in the year 5772.

Direct answer: (2). Every single one of them. The proof is in the statements written by those who followed in the footsteps of Peter, Paul, John, Luke, etc. I posted that documentation above. Did you see it?

If the Apostles and church fathers believes with Earth revolved around the sun then what was all the fuss about Galileo about?

Direct answer: (3) God did not wait for Darwin to come along in 1859 to reveal the real truth about the creation. He didn't need one who had rejected His word to bring out what actually happened, nor did He deliberately obscure or couch the language in Genesis concealing His actual method of the origin and development of man through history. This is just common sense.

My question was why different groups - which all took Genesis literally and based their estimates on the geneologies of the Bible - gave different dates for when the Earth began. For example:

• Roman Catholic (traditional): 5199 BC
• Bede (8th century monk): 3952 BC
• Jewish Calender: 3761 BCE

One person, Archbishop Usher of Armagh, went even further: Creation began on Sunday 23rd October 4004 BC, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden on Monday 10th November, Noah's Ark reached dry land on Wednesday 5th May 2348 BC and Christ was actually born in 4 BC, exactly four thousand years after the begining of creation.

So even before Darwin and modern physics there was a great deal of disagreement about the age of the Earth.

 

[samaus12345]

The point is the bible dictates our world view not secularism

 

[Martyrs44]

Martyr44: Thanks for the answers.

You're welcome.

But where is your pocket calculator? Please use it as I suggested.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: Exodus. 20:11

You miss the point again. NO ONE in the Bible after Moses refuted or attempted to change the literal history of Genesis that Moses revealed. That alone should have converted you.

 

[elopez]

It does far more than that. I for one have listed the many references that verify the six day creation of the world by God through Moses in the ten commandments and the verification of Jesus family lineage all the way back to Adam (Luke 3). With all of the other references verifying the historical nature of Genesis there is no question that Genesis is literal and historical both.

The problem with using genealogies to get a date is that they were not intended to be used in a chronological manner, and also because they often skip generations. The purpose was to establish one's family identity. Nowhere in Genesis 5 or any where else in the Bible are the numbers totaled up to show a chronology.

That is an outrageus untruth that you cannot verify with any fact of scripture. But I can verify his teaching of creation as given in Genesis:

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

Oh, yes but he did reveal a literal history of Genesis.

Um, you are aware that none of what you quoted actually indicates that the earth was created 6,000 years ago? All that is said in Romans 1:20 is that God created, not when God created. Same goes for the other verse. In short, that was a pretty lame attempt to prove your point.

No, I am not missing the point. You are. Most of the world knew nothing about evolution until Darwin popularized it with his work in 1859. If you doubt this then give me the name of any of our countries forefathers that believed in evolution. Give the name of any well know pre-Darwin theologian who believed in evolution: Adam Clarke? No. Matthew Henry? No. Calvin? No. Luther? No. Thomas Goodwin? No. etc.

You're still not getting it. The world was aware of evolution prior to Darwin's work. What part of that are you not getting? Theologians do not have to hold to a belief for it to be true, you know that right? So to sit there and redundantly claim early theologians didn't believe in evolution is pointless.

So it is you who is missing the point. But then what else could you do to defend your position but try to turn things around on me and lay such a charge at my doorstep?

Well, it's true. You seem to think that people were not aware of evolution until Darwin. That is false. That is a misunderstanding.

Baloney. Get your pocket calculator and turn to Genesis 5 and proceed from there throughout the O.T. with all the ages/times given. God did not waste paper and ink giving us those times and ages. But perhaps you think He did.

LOL! Like I said earlier, adding up genealogies fails completely in this respect, as the mentioning of such genealogies was not even intended to be added to form an exact date of anything!

Your 'symbolic' view is wrong. Consideration of Christ's family tree ought to be enough for you...that is if you understand the implications of the legality required of that lineage in order for Him to be heir to the throne of David. Apparently that all-important-necessity means little to you.

Genealogy is simply not enough to show any date of the earth. To think so is to be sorely mistaken, and as well as to take the intention of genealogies out of Biblical context.

 

[Martyrs44]

The problem with using genealogies to get a date is that they were not intended to be used in a chronological manner, and also because they often skip generations. The purpose was to establish one's family identity. Nowhere in Genesis 5 or any where else in the Bible are the numbers totaled up to show a chronology.

How wrong you are. Are you suggesting that the chronologists (Moses included) wasted their time and those records are of no value to us? A few missing names may be a bit of a mystery for the time being but there is still no way one can justify a millions-of-years scenario by what is available to us. Even if every character mentioned in those chronologies lived a thousand years that would not give us more than 77,000 to 100,000 yrs at the extreme limit; far fewer than what is required by the Darwinian time frame.

Um, you are aware that none of what you quoted actually indicates that the earth was created 6,000 years ago? All that is said in Romans 1:20 is that God created, not when God created. Same goes for the other verse. In short, that was a pretty lame attempt to prove your point.

Read carefully....there were no Jews on record of the 14th century B.C. to well after Christ died that believed in anything other than the six day creation.

All you are doing is just looking for excuses to not believe what is given in the plain-spoken text of scripture. You are attempting to justify your acceptance of Darwinian dogma and in your mind Darwin has the bottom line over scripture. Well, it isn't true and never has been true because evolution does not exist in our world and never did. Even natural law tells us that.

You're still not getting it. The world was aware of evolution prior to Darwin's work. What part of that are you not getting? Theologians do not have to hold to a belief for it to be true, you know that right? So to sit there and redundantly claim early theologians didn't believe in evolution is pointless.

No! It is you that doesn't get it. The JEWS had no concept of anything other than a six day creation................that is what counts in this matter. The pockets of religious cults throughout the world that held to evolution to one degree or another is refuted by Paul in Romans 1;

"21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

So the only indirect mention of evolution in the scriptures is refuted by the scriptures. It was the pagans who believed in the early ideas of evolution and it undoubtedly influenced their connection between their animal-like idols and the belief that all humans evolved from them.

Well, it's true. You seem to think that people were not aware of evolution until Darwin. That is false. That is a misunderstanding.

I asked you to name pre-Darwin theologians or authors who believed in evolution...but you did not. You can't support such a claim without evidence.

I am aware that some believed that nonsense in the pagan world.

LOL! Like I said earlier, adding up genealogies fails completely in this respect, as the mentioning of such genealogies was not even intended to be added to form an exact date of anything!

No, it does not and you're are not telling the truth. Those genealogies are not wasted ink and paper nor a waste of our time reading them as you seem to think. God had a purpose in it and it was to reveal to us the history of the families of the earth and to legitimize their family lineages. Good grief, why can't you see that?

Genealogy is simply not enough to show any date of the earth. To think so is to be sorely mistaken, and as well as to take the intention of genealogies out of Biblical context.

Yes, it is! Besides verifying the history of the families of early man and later Jewish chronology it is to given to us as a time frame for the events and occurrences of mankind since Adam. But you are ignoring the necessity of accuracy in the family lineage of Jesus Christ Himself as revealed in Luke 3. If Jesus is falsely linked to mythical characters or storybook tale myths then His family lineage is not legal and He has no right to the throne of David. By your treatment of scripture you are revealing that that fact does not matter to you and is of no importance at all.

Lastly,

The first seven day week was followed and utilized in history by the most ancient civilizations of the world. Proof:

Quote: "The origin of the seven-day week is the religious significance that was placed on the seventh day by ancient cultures, including the Babylonian and Jewish civilizations."

Furthermore: "China
The earliest known reference in Chinese writings to a seven-day week is attributed to Fan Ning, who lived in the late 4th century in the Jin Dynasty, while diffusions from the Manichaeans are documented with the writings of the Chinese Buddhist monk Yi Jing and the Ceylonese or Central Asian Buddhist monk Bu Kong of the 7th century (Tang Dynasty).
[edit] Japan

The Chinese transliteration of the planetary system was soon brought to Japan by the Japanese monk Kobo Daishi. Surviving diaries of the Japanese statesman Fujiwara Michinaga show the seven-day system in use in Heian Japan as early as 1007. In Japan, the seven-day system was kept in use for astrological purposes until its promotion to a full-fledged Western-style calendrical basis during the Meiji era.
[edit] Hindu

The seven-day week may have been in use during the Vedic Period, although according to Pandurang Vaman Kane, author of History of Dharmasastra, "this is not conclusive".
The Pañcasiddhāntikā mentions 'Monday'. The Garga dated 1st Century BCE, refers to the seven-day week, Sunday to Saturday.
He concludes "the above references furnish a terminus ad quem (viz. 1st century BCE–1st century CE) The terminus a quo cannot be stated with certainty".[6][7]
[edit] France

Main article: French republican calendar
France discontinued the seven-day week for a ten-day week with the introduction of the republican calendar in 1793. The Concordat of 1801, which re-established the Roman Catholic Church in France, also restored the seven-day week, beginning with Easter Sunday, 18 April 1802.
[edit] Soviet Union

Main article: Soviet calendar
In 1929, the USSR discontinued the seven-day week for a five-day week, then a six-day week. While the days were still named according to the seven-day week, the work schedules were rotated in five- and six-day periods. The seven-day week was reintroduced on 27 June 1940.
(Wikipedia)

There is only one reason why even ancient pagan cultures would practice a seven day week and why even those that tried to break from it always returned to it...it is because of what God did in the creation week of seven days...and it continued in practice and was later verified by Moses in Genesis one and in the very ten commandments of Exodus.

This is conclusive. This is bottom line. Now you've lost this debate and you need to be humble enough to admit your error, if indeed you are a humble Christian and can admit to such things.

Evolution is a damnable lie. I am an ex-evolutionist, with excellent reasons.