Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

[Anaximander]

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.[/FONT]

[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]
[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]-God’s 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]


[FONT=+mn-ea]-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s 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]

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

-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.

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 science’s dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?

Best,

 

[Skwim]

-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.

That one I didn't know. So what happens, your feet become bloody stumps from all the tap dancing?

-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.

Tee Hee! Get out the anti-troll spray folks.

-God’s commandment to Noah, “Be fruitful and multiply, andreplenish(torefill) the earth” (Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology. . .


. . . 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.

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[McBell]

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.[/FONT][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]
[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]-God’s 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]
[FONT=+mn-ea]
[/FONT]
[FONT=+mn-ea]-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s 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]

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

-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.

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 "searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight dot 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 science’s dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?

Best,

 

[painted wolf]

Did you know…

-Charles Darwin never claimed life evolved by chance.

Yup, Natural selection is not random.

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

Just that we share common ancestors... just like I don't come from my cousin.

-Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in

Origin of Species

nor did he use the phrase, “survival of the fittest”.

Not in the first edition... but he did in his updated fifth edition.

-Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.

I'm not sure I follow the logic on this one.

-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.

Only if you accept that all life is of the same "kind" rather than distinct ones.

-The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.

Which one? Like all creationism, there isn't a single explanation for anything. It's a very fractured movement.

-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.

Theories are more than just this.. but you have the basics correct.

-God’s commandment to Noah,

“Be fruitful and multiply, andreplenish(torefill) the earth”

(Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology.

It is?

-Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s 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.

It is? I thought the Bible said that it was that high over the tallest mountains.

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

Some did... some didn't. Much like today creationists are not a cohesive group.

-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.

source please?

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 "searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight dot 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 science’s dirty little secret. Has anyone ever heard of this?

Nope... and I have a hard time swallowing it. But I'm not suprised by it either. Creationists come in just about every flavor possible. Under the right circumstances even I can be considered a creationist. There is plenty of "crazy" to go around.

wa:do

 

[Anaximander]

I'm not the author, but the "taller than the highest mountains" I do know is a misconception. It says in the King James Version, "..and the mountains were covered" Orthodox Jews for the most part do not accept this, because the Hebrew word for "mountaions" is the same as "hills". This translations conforms perfectley with 22 feet. Keep in mind, the Tigris and Euphrates are rivers, and the whole story conforms nicely to a river flood of 22 feet, which occurred around 2,900 BC. This flood (in the land of Ur) destroyed the Southern Sumerian City States.

I have searched this forum and I have yet to see anything about the origins of the creation scientists global flood/sedimentary rocks argument coming from a teenager with visions. Those that are yawning, care to fill us in?

best,

 

[Anaximander]

-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.

I've argued this one before. Evolution is not one species changing to another, but a change in the frequency of alleles within a population (or kind) from one generation to the next. The point I believe he is making is that "kind" is not a set category, but a morphologically changing category with individuals evolving within it. Was that clear as mud?

best,

 

[Smoke]

I'm not the author, but the "taller than the highest mountains" I do know is a misconception. It says in the King James Version, "..and the mountains were covered" Orthodox Jews for the most part do not accept this, because the Hebrew word for "mountaions" is the same as "hills". This translations conforms perfectley with 22 feet.

Nonsense. Orthodox Jews do accept it, because that's what the text says.

See Rabbi Eleazar of Modiim: "Rather, all the fountains of the great deep came up first until the water was even with the mountains, then the water rose fifteen more cubits." (Tractate Yoma, 76a - page 227 of this PDF file).

And also Rashi: "Fifteen amohs above them. [Meaning:] above the peaks of all the mountains, once the water reached the level of the summits." (See here.)

 

[painted wolf]

So then... 22 feet above the highest hills in the area then... around 3600 m tall. The land around the Tigris/Euphrates rivers is not flat and featureless.
Or 22 feet above the rivers overall elevation change about 693 m?

And how could Noah have been lost for so very long on the ark without seeing land only to end up on top of a mountain?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I've argued this one before. Evolution is not one species changing to another, but a change in the frequency of alleles within a population (or kind) from one generation to the next. The point I believe he is making is that "kind" is not a set category, but a morphologically changing category with individuals evolving within it. Was that clear as mud?

best,

More like siltstone.... care to try again?
Are you suggesting that all life belongs to the same "kind"?
If not, how does one determine a "kind"?

wa:do

 

[Anaximander]

Nonsense. Orthodox Jews do accept it, because that's what the text says.

See Rabbi Eleazar of Modiim: "Rather, all the fountains of the great deep came up first until the water was even with the mountains, then the water rose fifteen more cubits." (Tractate Yoma, 76a - page 227 of this PDF file).

And also Rashi: "Fifteen amohs above them. [Meaning:] above the peaks of all the mountains, once the water reached the level of the summits." (See here.)

Hey, I'm not the author, but I'm sure he supports this claim. It'll suck when your "nonsense" actually turns into sense.

best,

 

[Anaximander]

More like siltstone.... care to try again?
Are you suggesting that all life belongs to the same "kind"?
If not, how does one determine a "kind"?

wa:do

You don't get it do you. I never said all life belongs to the same kind. Read it again. How does one determine a "kind"? The ONLY reason why young earth anti-evolution creationists use "kind" as to mean horse-kind, cat-kind, dog-kind, is to get around the impossibility of fitting hundreds of thousands of species into one ark. "Kind" used this way is not in the Bible. The fossil record conforms perfectly to macroevolution and organisms evolving within kinds. If you still do not get it, I'll try again tomorrow.

best,

 

[tumbleweed41]

-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.

I am only going to address this, simply because it is a pet peeve of mine.

The Law of Gravity is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions.
The Theory of Gravity describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

Similarly....

Biological Evolution is a statement of fact. Verified through the Scientific Method.
The Theory of Evolution describes how Biological Evolution works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

The author is on the right track, however, in that Scientific Theories, as they are actually complex descriptive processes, rarely, if ever, become Scientific Facts or Laws, a more precise term of the action.

 

[Anaximander]

I am only going to address this, simply because it is a pet peeve of mine.

The Law of Gravity is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions.
The Theory of Gravity describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

Similarly....

Biological Evolution is a statement of fact. Verified through the Scientific Method.
The Theory of Evolution describes how Biological Evolution works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

The author is on the right track, however, in that Scientific Theories, as they are actually complex descriptive processes, rarely, if ever, become Scientific Facts or Laws, a more precise term of the action.

Hear, hear!

 

[Smoke]

Hey, I'm not the author, but I'm sure he supports this claim.

Really? What sources does he cite?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hey, I'm not the author, but I'm sure he supports this claim.

I find that hard to believe when he does not even really understand that Evolution is a Scientific Fact described by the Theory of Evolution.

Or that the Law of Gravity (a Fact) is explained in Gravitational Theory.

 

[painted wolf]

You don't get it do you. I never said all life belongs to the same kind. Read it again. How does one determine a "kind"? The ONLY reason why young earth anti-evolution creationists use "kind" as to mean horse-kind, cat-kind, dog-kind, is to get around the impossibility of fitting hundreds of thousands of species into one ark. "Kind" used this way is not in the Bible. The fossil record conforms perfectly to macroevolution and organisms evolving within kinds. If you still do not get it, I'll try again tomorrow.

best,

You are right... I don't get it. You have two contradicting statements here.
1) That the fossil record conforms perfectly to macroevolution
2) that the fossil record conforms perfectly to evolving within "kinds"

Could you define "kind" so I can get an idea of what you are trying to say?

wa:do

 

[Wotan]

You are right... I don't get it. You have two contradicting statements here.
1) That the fossil record conforms perfectly to macroevolution
2) that the fossil record conforms perfectly to evolving within "kinds"

Could you define "kind" so I can get an idea of what you are trying to say?

wa:do

If he does he will be the 1st.

 

[Anaximander]

I find that hard to believe when he does not even really understand that Evolution is a Scientific Fact described by the Theory of Evolution.
Or that the Law of Gravity (a Fact) is explained in Gravitational Theory.

According to the National Academy of Sciences:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The "Law of Gravity" is not a fact, it is a law. Again, according to the National Academy of Sciences, "Theories explain and Laws Describe"

Where do you get that Hawley does not know the difference between fact, an observation, theory, an explanation, and law, a description? Tumbleweed, I like how you think, but it seems to me there is no conflict here.

best,

 

[tumbleweed41]

According to the National Academy of Sciences:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The "Law of Gravity" is not a fact, it is a law. Again, according to the National Academy of Sciences, "Theories explain and Laws Describe"

Where do you get that Hawley does not know the difference between fact, an observation, theory, an explanation, and law, a description? Tumbleweed, I like how you think, but it seems to me there is no conflict here.

best,

This....

-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.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
National Academy of Sciences.

In the same sense, Gravity is a scientific fact, objects in our everyday experience tend to fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so.It is shown mathematically in a Law, and explained through a Theory.Just as the scientific fact of Biological Evolution is explained in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Smoke]

Really? What sources does he cite?

[youtube]K8E_zMLCRNg[/youtube]