Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

Anaximander · Oct 3, 2010

Greetings all:

Did you know

-Charles Darwin never claimed life evolved by chance.

-Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.

-Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in Origin of Species nor did he use the phrase, survival of the fittest.

[FONT=+mn-ea]-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.

-The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.
[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]
[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]-The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]

[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]-Gravity is not a fact and equally surprising is that it never will be. It, along with evolution, is an explanation based upon facts and verified through testing, i.e., a theory.[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]

[FONT=+mn-ea]-Gods commandment to Noah, [/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]Be fruitful and multiply, and[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea] [/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]replenish[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea] [/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea](to[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea] [/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]refill) the earth[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea] (Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology.
[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]
[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noahs flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.

-18th century creationists rejected the possibility of the world's sedimentary rocks being remnant global flood sediments. It is actually biblically impossible.

-Creation sciences dirty little secret: The one and only proof of a global flood, all layered sedimentary rocks, finds its origins from the dream of a teenager who claimed it was a vision from God.[/FONT]

Some of these claims I have not heard before (actually most). How about you? and be honest. This list was created by a Michael Hawley on his evolution/creation website www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com and is the author of a new book that has just come out. He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution. I am especially intrigued by creation sciences dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?

Best,

Exiledoomsayer · Oct 3, 2010

Anaximander said:
Greetings all:

Did you know

-Charles Darwin never claimed life evolved by chance.

Indeed, Mutations are chance, but the mechanism natural selection most certainly is not.

-Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.

Quite, It says we came from a common ape ancestor if I recall correctly.

-Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in Origin of Species nor did he use the phrase, survival of the fittest.

Okay, this did surprise me.
I am not sure if its being implied though weither Darwin did not hold these ideas or that he did not use those specific phrases to describe it.

[FONT=+mn-ea]-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]

Depending on how you interpret the bible I suppose? I could see that, I think though that most christians that do not take the bible litteral hold this position. The issue is with the people take that the bible as litteral and infallible.

[FONT=+mn-ea]-The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.[/FONT]

Noticed this aswell. all animals are of the same kind. All animals are of the same common ancestor.

[/FONT]
[FONT=+mn-ea]-The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.[/FONT]

[FONT=+mn-ea]-Gravity is not a fact and equally surprising is that it never will be. It, along with evolution, is an explanation based upon facts and verified through testing, i.e., a theory.[/FONT]

[FONT=+mn-ea]-Gods commandment to Noah,

[FONT=+mn-ea]Be fruitful and multiply, and[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]replenish[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea](to[/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea]refill) the earth[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=+mn-ea] (Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology.[/FONT]

I am not sure what this is about.

[FONT=+mn-ea][/FONT]
[FONT=+mn-ea]-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noahs flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.[/FONT]

Did not know this. Always thought it said the world was flooded. If this is true the evidence of seacreature fossils on mountain tops just got even funnier.

-18th century creationists rejected the possibility of the world's sedimentary rocks being remnant global flood sediments. It is actually biblically impossible.

I guess its news to me? Not sure what this is about though..

-Creation sciences dirty little secret: The one and only proof of a global flood, all layered sedimentary rocks, finds its origins from the dream of a teenager who claimed it was a vision from God.

Did not know this, but it sure makes alot of sense. Im not sure if its right to call layered sedimentary rocks proof of a global flood though.

Some of these claims I have not heard before (actually most). How about you? and be honest. This list was created by a Michael Hawley on his evolution/creation website www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com and is the author of a new book that has just come out. He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution. I am especially intrigued by creation sciences dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?

Best,

I suppose that I heard about a good deal of these although I am not sure what his point is. with some of these.

AV1611VET · Oct 3, 2010

Anaximander said:
He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution.

I'd like to see how he justifies the Bible's claim that whales came before land animals.

His claim might fool you, but it doesn't fool us.

Anaximander · Oct 3, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I'd like to see how he justifies the Bible's claim that whales came before land animals.

-Creation science’s dirty little secret: The one and only proof of a global flood, all layered sedimentary rocks, finds its origins from the dream of a teenager who claimed it was a vision from God.

I'm curious why you are not curious about this one. If true, you have wholeheartedly embraced a belief from a teenager with visions.

best,

AV1611VET · Oct 3, 2010

Anaximander said:
I'm curious why you are not curious about this one. If true, you have wholeheartedly embraced a belief from a teenager with visions.

best,

I'm sorry -- you lost me on this one.

I didn't say a word about a global flood.

If this guys thinks a literal Genesis 1 conforms to current science today, he's wrong.

Anaximander · Oct 3, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I'm sorry -- you lost me on this one.

I didn't say a word about a global flood.

If this guys thinks a literal Genesis 1 conforms to current science today, he's wrong.

...and you're claiming that without even looking at the evidence he gives. Now, have you ever done that before...

AV1611VET · Oct 3, 2010

Anaximander said:
...and you're claiming that without even looking at the evidence he gives. Now, have you ever done that before...

Again, what are you talking about?

Here's his statement, according to the OP:

He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution.

If this is what he said, you should know as well as I do that he is severely mistaken.

QV please: 1, along with Frumious Bandersnatch's excellent reply.

Exiledoomsayer · Oct 3, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Originally Posted by Anaximander

...and you're claiming that without even looking at the evidence he gives. Now, have you ever done that before...

Again, what are you talking about?

Here's his statement, according to the OP:

He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution.

If this is what he said, you should know as well as I do that he is severely mistaken.

QV please: 1, along with Frumious Bandersnatch's excellent reply. .

I actually have to agree with AV on this. I do not think that all life forms poofed into existance at the same time in a six day period with talking serpents and all roughly 6k years ago fits with the scientific evidence.

I mean for one thing evolution says we came from apes, not from dirt.

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

Exiledoomsayer said:
I actually have to agree with AV on this. I do not think that all life forms poofed into existance at the same time in a six day period with talking serpents and all roughly 6k years ago fits with the scientific evidence.

I mean for one thing evolution says we came from apes, not from dirt.

I can understand why you agree with AV. You do not understand biological evolution. Evolution does not state human beings came from apes (unless you consider humans as apes which is a difficult point to argue against biologically). Evolution is a chance in the frequency of alleles within a species.

Also, your particular interpretation of Genesis is not the only literal interpretation. Geocentrists claim you interpretation is not truly literal because you do not take into account the dozens of comments about a flat earth (ex. Sun stood still, four corners of the earth). The only position you can gives is, "Not all verses are suppose to be taken literal". Well, there are actually literal interpretations that fit an ancient earth and biological evolution (Hawley seems to agree).

best,

AV1611VET · Oct 4, 2010

Anaximander said:
Also, your particular interpretation of Genesis is not the only literal interpretation. Geocentrists claim you interpretation is not truly literal because you do not take into account the dozens of comments about a flat earth (ex. Sun stood still, four corners of the earth).

Geocentrism and flat earth have nothing to do with evolution.

If this guy wants to claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible conforms to 'all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution', I'm calling his bluff.

Split Rock · Oct 4, 2010

Anaximander said:
I can understand why you agree with AV. You do not understand biological evolution. Evolution does not state human beings came from apes (unless you consider humans as apes which is a difficult point to argue against biologically). Evolution is a chance in the frequency of alleles within a species.

Evolution does say we evolved from apes, since we are apes. While your defintion of evolution is technically correct, I think a better definition is Descent with Modification.

Mike Elphick · Oct 4, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Geocentrism and flat earth have nothing to do with evolution.

If this guy wants to claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible conforms to 'all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution', I'm calling his bluff.

There's something not quite right here. Anaximander's replies, and his apparent skirting about the issues raised in the OP, just don't add up. The flashlight book seems extremely amateurish with childish statements about 'dirty secrets' along with other apparently self-contradictory statements.

Putting aside the word 'interpretation', there is no way a PLAIN READING of the text in Genesis 1 and 2 can POSSIBLY be married up with modern science. So, Anaximander, where do you really stand on the issue of creation versus evolution? So far you seem to be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-footing about the subject.

The internet is a powerful tool, Anaximander. I mean, are you also known as 'Jeff Davis' in another creation/evolution forum? And isn't 'Jeff Davis' writing an article about Jack the Ripper? And isn't Michael Hawley also interested in what he calls RIPPEROLOGY and has had an article published too?

Ripperology

Who was Jack the Ripper? In the late summer and fall of 1888 in the Whitechapel district of London, a series of gruesome murders occurred. All of the victims were prostitutes whose bodies were ruthlessly mutilated and in a number of cases had organs removed. It is still a mystery of who Jack the Ripper really was. Many people around the world are still very intrigued by this mystery and enjoy researching the case in order to better understand it and possibly even solve it. The community of Jack the Ripper enthusiasts/researchers/authors are affectionately known as ripperologists. The internet has been an outstanding resource for research and also for ripperologists to communicate with each other. I am a new-be in ripperology, but I am having the time of my life. Other Research

If you are not also known as Jeff Davis and it is just a coincidence about his postings and ripperology, then apologies and I will ask the mods to delete my post.

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

Thanks for the compliment, but no. Ripperology is actually how I found out about his geology side. He just wrote a critical Jack the Ripper article on a suspect named Francis Tumblety and the end of the article gives details about him. He is also a fellow paleontologist and Christian. I have put an email out to him, but he has yet to respond. ...Don't bother asking to delete the post. I kind of like publicizing Ripperology!

best,

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

Split Rock said:
Evolution does say we evolved from apes, since we are apes. While your defintion of evolution is technically correct, I think a better definition is Descent with Modification.

Nicely put.

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If this guy wants to claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible conforms to 'all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution', I'm calling his bluff.

I actually have to agree with you on this one AV1611VET. I put an email in for him, but he's yet to respond.

best,

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

Mike Elphick said:
So, Anaximander, where do you really stand on the issue of creation versus evolution? So far you seem to be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-footing about the subject.

I thought I made it clear. I am a theistic evolutionist. I personally could care less about a literal interpretation of Genesis (something Hawley seems to embrace). Science is the most effective and objective tool human beings have in discovering the truth. I know this because I do it. I know first-hand that there is no scientific conspiracy to dupe the public. Paleontologists could care less about the public. All they want to do is publish in scholarly journals that the public does not read.

The reason why I am a theistic evolutionist has nothing to do with the Bible, but because of personal experience and philosophy. I see a difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. One is a belief (or disbelief) and the other is a tool for discovery.

best,

AV1611VET · Oct 4, 2010

Anaximander said:
I personally could care less about a literal interpretation of Genesis (something Hawley seems to embrace).

'Seems to embrace'?

You said:

He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution.

And now you say he 'seems' to embrace a literal interpretation?

Anaximander · Oct 4, 2010

AV1611VET said:
'Seems to embrace'?

You said:

And now you say he 'seems' to embrace a literal interpretation?

I haven't read his book, only comments on his website. Hence the "seems".

Greg1234 · Oct 4, 2010

Anaximander said:
I thought I made it clear. I am a theistic evolutionist.

Hm.

Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

Junior Member

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Not so new...

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

In the beginning was El

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency