To begin a respectful conversation hopefully from different viewpoints

The actual date of the earth isn't nearly enough time for any animals to evolve
So no, it's not valid

Where did you get the date of the earth?

The gospels has the genealogy of everyone from Adam to Jesus
Add 2026 years and thats the date of the earth

But that genealogy is incomplete because St. Mattew wanted to give is a symbolic symmetry. https://www.pastorjasonelder.com/the-gospel-of-matthew/jesus-geneaology-in-matthew-meaning-structure-and-significance
I'm not trying to be argumentative.

I skimmed it but it looks ok

What do you mean if I might ask?

The genealogy that was written in other books just took a different route to get to Adam

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following your point. I understand that the Mattew and Luke genealogies trace two different lineages. What I am saying is that St. Matthew's genealogy is not comprehensive, but a streamlined summary that highlights key figures to demonstrate his connection to David and Abraham as evidence of Him being the Messiah.

Okay well what about luke

I don't know if it's entirely relevant to the conversation. Because we know the dates of certain persons in scripture, but the majority of scripture takes place in the bronze age and then late antiquity. Theistic evolution would be mainly concerned with everything pre-historical: creation trough Adam through the flood.

If life randomly came into existence, there would be countless species of wildlife that would quickly die because they couldn't cope with their environment.

Not necessarily, evolution through natural selection would cause some animals die off that aren't suited to a certain environment, but it wouldn't have to be an entire species, just a subset of that species.
Not trying to sound combative, just trying to work through an idea with other people.

There is precisely 0 evidence of evolution beyond about the Family classification level and a ton of evidence that the Bible is right on everything. There was also no death before the fall so no millions and billions of years. The image used is a take off on a popular artist's imagination. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record, let alone a linear progression from monkeys to men

I agree with the last sentence for sure, but the Bible doesn't specify how long earth had been around prior to the fall. It's also currently debated how long the process of Creation actually took. Either way, God would obviously be responsible for guiding evolution if it ends up being true.

"Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female?"
"But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female?"
So.. God made male and female last in a "questionable" amount of time and the Son of God, the Creator says it happened in the beginning? The questionable amount of time only became a concern when evolution was made mainstream. Afterwards, "theologians" tried to make it fit by obfuscating the clear teaching of "the first day", " the second day", etc .
You seem to be jumping through a lot of hoops that don't line up with scripture to make your points. It isn't necessarily a salvation moment but as you are obfuscating the clear teachings of the Creator of the universe and since He tells us to add/subtract nothing to the word of God. Is it a path you want to die on?
Evolution was spoken of prior to Darwin. His grandfather spoke of it for years. The Greeks discussed it in antiquity. They all did it outside the bible. Do not add it into the Bible and certainly not into history.

I don't think I'm jumping through many hoops at all, but no this is not a hill I plan to die on because I do not believe in it. No one's salvation rests on their beliefs about evolution. I just wanted to have a steel-manned conversation about Darwinian evolution with other Christians because I do not have many steel-manned conversations about evolution.

answersingenesis.org/god/hill-to-die-on

Thank you for sharing this. I don't agree with David on this one. The hill's I will die on are the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, and the sacraments, and other core beliefs necessary for salvation.
I'm not going to die on the hill of old earth, theistic evolution vs young earth creationism because it's not necessary for salvation.

If someone believes that the earth is billions of years old, that might make them more resistant to the Gospel.

Bruv, there are ISIS terrorists coming to Christ right now. I really don't think believing in the wrong birthday for the Earth is going to stop the Holy Spirit for most people.

Sin brought death into creation vs millions of years of death brought people into creation. Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible and was created by people like the racist Darwin to remove the Bible from the conversation. Goo to you and Molecules to man are a poor attempt to explain how abiogenesis could happen.

To be fair, Darwing wouldn't have "Created evolution" if it's real. It would be a natural process that one discovers. My thought is that if it ends up being a real, natural process, then it would be divinely guided by God's hand.

It is neither natural nor real. Biogenesis, life come from life is provable science. Abiogenesis is a miracle the secular community puts forth to push their agenda. God created Adam and Eve to live forever. Death didn't exist before sin entered into creation.

I agree with the last sentence but abiogenesis is just one model of Darwinian evolution out of many. I agree that it's physically impossible for life to arise out of that which isn't alive. The Lord God breathed into dust and it came to life, therefore if evolution is true, it must be divinely guided.

And no death before sin is a lie?

I feel I must apologize. I should have asked you why evolution is, for lack of a better term, attractive to you. Your words suggest you need it to be true for some reason.

I don't think it's attractive. I just want to steel-man an argument with other Christians.

So... you're hoping to find reasons that evolution, secular theory of how things started is true?

You can steel-man an argument without believing in it. It's a healthy, intellectual practice.

It's a practice anyway...

I can easily flip this around: If you truly believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is the most scientifically accurate, you should have no fears or worries about examining any other claim.

"Proving" an argument one doesn't believe in? Especially one not backed by the word of God? Seems like no proof at all.

When you steel-man an argument, you build the strongest case you can for why it may "potentially" be true and then you work to find whatever flaws you can in it. It demonstrates not only your own understanding of opposing viewpoints but also the confidence you have in following the truth no matter where it leads. Steel-manning is the most intellectually honest exercise one can use to pursue truth.
It's the opposite of strawmanning

The opposing viewpoint is that one can internalize ideas that can very negatively affect us. Garbage in garbage out is a real thing. I looked into the religion of evolution many years ago and found no reason to try to marry any portion of it with the word of God. I focus on wisdom and helpful, positive knowledge instead.

Then I am not meant to have a conversation with you. I want to speak with someone about this topic dispassionately.

I'm sorry. I cannot be dispassionate about the truth of the Bible. I've been forced to endure the world lieing about it my entire life. I can't even imagine being dispassionate about it.