They take the geneaologies as essentially mythical.
Ross and Gauger take them as mythical?
More like they take them as having huuuuuugeeeee gaps in them allowing for thousands, and in Gaugerâs case, millions of years in between the names. This allows them to place Adam at the headwaters of humanity.
Yeah, a front row seat to modern day wannabe theologians discussing and formulating models that ALL can be wrong. 
Lucy is our Eve and Ardi is our Adam.
So they preserve biblical literalism by abandoning biblical literalism?
3 Likes
No they donât care about literalism. Different concerns are guiding them.
1 Like
Iâve always thought that was a little nuts.
Someone rejects evolution because it doesnât jive with Genesis⌠so letâs describe a scenario that puts Adam and Eve millions of years ago ⌠there⌠now we still donât jive with Genesis!
4 Likes
Please explain.
A book is in the works. One book at a time thoughâŚ
2 Likes
Why are you unwilling to talk about subjects youâre writing books about?
He is writing a book. Not me. And I have my hands full this month. We might organize a meeting on his work, and we might invite you. So chill. Give me time.
2 Likes
Sorry, who?
It is NOT work. It is all speculation.
Need we say it? Even speculations take time and work to flesh out!
1 Like
WLC.
Exactly.
But I wasnât asking about WLC. I was asking about Ann Gauger and RTB.
1 Like
Sounds like that question requires a different thread.
Objection. Youâre the main participant in this digression (if it is a digression). You canât just stop it cold after making a number of claims on the subject. What are the Ross and Gauger models? What are they chiefly concerned with if not reconciling biblical literalism with science?
1 Like
I suppose I never started to talk about those. I was just discussing WLC.
Ross and Rana are a separate conversation altogether. We have a deal in the works with them to see if and how their model can be adjusted to account for population genetics. You can see for yourself they have a range of positions: Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models.
@Agauger has an approach that has been discussed at length here. She is happy with Adam and Eve going back as far as 2 mya, which WLC is not happy with. She also is not really working with the rules of secular science, nor has she touched any of the theology, so that is not very helpful to WLCâs project.
WLC is his own person. Unlike RTB and @Agauger, I donât think he cares if Adam and Eve are specially created. He has is own set of constraints he is working from and literalism is not among them.
Well, now, they are all engaged in selective literalism. Adam and Eve may not be 6000 years old, but they must have been the sole ancestors of us all. Or they may not have been specially created, but they must be real people. Etc. Which bits of Genesis do they each consider must be true? Which are dispensable?
I honestly donât understand the rules for some people. I can only take them at their word and try to learn more about what guides their view.
1 Like