Wait a second, did you just try to claim that evolution is bs? I'm sorry, but evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. For a biologist to deny that would be like staring into the sun and saying that it isn't bright.

Okay, good luck. Seriously. I spent 3 fucking hours explaining to you how you would have to be absolutetly conceited to consider the genealogy a contradiction.

@1. Incoherent arguments. What the hell are you talking about?

@3. It is a satisfying explanation, the money is a separate question altogether. Whether it was his field or not doesn't change the fact that he hung himself and exploded onto the field below. As for the money "contradiction" I don't know let me look it up........

There's a difference however. Evolution, even in its incomplete form, has great explanatory power. There's overwhelming amount of evidence for it. And, of course, the possibility that evolution is wrong is always open (however unlikely it may seem at this stage); you just have to physically demonstrate it. Dogmatic hold of religion, on the other hand, is just plain irrational.

No, it's not. It's on one hand you consider Joseph the adoptive father (supposed father), and on the other you consider him the in law, in both cases him being the supposed son of Heli (supposed son).

I don't remember saying that Joseph would have been a stranger to Jesus. I understand the importance of adoption in the Jewish tradition. But I also understand the importance of blood genealogy, by virtue of his virgin mother.

@bold. How do you guys come up with phrases like those? You are as dogmatic about evolution as religious folks are about their faiths. I have seen in in your post right here (bold) and in many people I have talked to who are absolutely convinced that Evolution is the truth and there could logically be no other way.

You spent 3 hours repeating the same damn things. Namely, you were twisting the actual words of the bible to make it sound more plausible.

I put no argument forward. What are you talking about? I simply asked, how do you explain Luke's inaccurate depiction of the Roman census?

No, it isn't. How does a person fall down headlong when hanging by the neck?

@1. I will look into it, whether the Tou had to do with him being the son of Heli, or Jesus being the son of Joseph. I'm pretty sure that it isn't a contradiction people were more anal about that stuff back then than even you are, it wouldn't have flown.

@2. I told you, I haven't looked into it.

@3. I honestly don't know did the text say headlong? Listen, it took us 3 hours to go over the genealogies. I'm pooped. I'm going to bed.

The problem with creationism is that it can't actually be a science. It doesn't have any evidence to contribute, given that there is no new evidence for God or any means of testing for God. It either contradicts or compliments, but cannot actually be part of science.

The graph I posted was just data, nicely presented and designed to have impact. It is just a tool to get people to question the validity of the Bible, not a rigorous examination of every point. But it is important that it isn't taken as 100% true, given aspects that are intolerant. Ultimately there are parts that have to be fought against.

It is completely misleading is what it was. Basically the opposite goal of science, which is to find answers. No, a fancy edge-graph of supposed contradictions doesn't offer anyone any kind of truth on the world, especially not on religion. Let's face it, most naturalists are hostile to religion, so the point of the graph was to shame religion. You're not going to argue the contrary with me unless you're totally dishonest.

Creationism does have testable claims. There are claims in the bible and the creationists are constantly looking to submit the biblical claims to the accepted scientifit principles held around the world. They also hold evolution against the same set of rules, so it is completely fair.

Any claim in the bible can be scientifically verified, and many NON-creationists have also attempted the same exercise, but to discredit the bible instead of to affirm its validity. But when they do it it's science, am I right?

Dude, seriously, what is wrong with you? Happydolphin already explained the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke, in that they give account for Jesus' TWO earthly parents. TWO parents hence TWO generation lines, that lead back to David, as prophesy predicted.

Moreover, and this might be the 3rd time I'm saying this inn this thread, Matthew and Luke were wrttien with two different audiences in mind. Matthew was written with the Jewish reader in mind so it naturally accounted for Joseph's family tree. Luke on the other was written for a Roman (or maybe Greeks, I can't remember) so it listed the Mother, Mary's family. Also, Luke was more focused on FACTS as oppsed to TRADITION, and thus if Jesus' father was REALLY some man in the sky then the only FACT was that MARY was his mother so it is her family that was important for LUKE's (as oppsed to Matthew's) readers. And I'm not just talking shit, as Luke 1:1-4 below, clearly tells you that Luke was gathering factual EVIDENCE from EYEWITNESS to present those factual accounts to Theophilus, who I assume was Roman dignitary:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

⁴ That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.