|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
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. -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. -The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible. -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. -God’s commandment to Noah, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish (to refill) the earth (Gen 9:1) was actually given first to Adam (Gen 1:28), and this is in perfect agreement with anthropology. -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. -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 http://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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Actually, I have a bone to pick with just about every one of these statements.
quote: You don't get it. Many creationists tout this, so Hawley is merely letting a less educated public know this.
quote: Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
quote: It looks to me like his target audience are Christians who've had a science education from their religious leaders. In view of this, I'm sure this is not trivial.
quote: Many Christians believe the two conflict, so I get it why he's making the claim.
quote: The problem is, science rejects your definition.
quote: Oh, contraire. First, why would an ancient document even use the word "evolved". Second, from a theistic evolutionist perspective, God did make the beasts but used biological evolution as one of his tools.
quote: Oh contraire again. There is no conflicing view about these words in the scientific community, and this is obviously the one he is referring to.
quote: I've actually argued this one before. In 2,900 BC, a major river flood destroyed the southern city states of Sumeria. The two rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates. Twenty two feet would be appropriate for a river flood. This is in accordance to archaeology, so I bet this is what he's getting at.
quote: I'm sure this comment relates to flood geology claimed by all young earth creationists. It does show who his target audience is. best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
quote: I never do, but it certainly looks like you do not know what you are talking about. Read my above comments and I'll get to yours when I have time. I will make one quick comment, Darwin never used the word "evolution" in his first four editions and only in his last edition did he use the word "evolved". He did this on purpose because people at the time believed evolution was determinant and he hated that. Did you not know this? best, Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
quote: Rahvin, You certainly do not get it. Hawley is pointing out the creationists' definition of microevolution. The reason they do this is because they must somehow explain why one ark can fit so many species in it. They claim "general kinds" were in the ark, such as one dog-kind, and then microevolution occurred after that. This is what is genetically impossible. You are pointing out mistakes when you haven't even seen his evidence to these claims. Luckily, I've seen some of this before. best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
That's exactly what he is saying. Darwin never used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" because that was coined by Herbert Spencer.
The point he is trying to make is many creationists think Darwin invented evolution and he never even used the full word. Why do you not get it? best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
The fact that I got you "Rahvin mad", I could care less. Your anger comes from ego, because your assumption is you understand this stuff better. None of these comments are deceptive in the least.
Let's see how smart you are. What does the author mean by the creationists' global flood/sedimentary rocks argument coming from a teenager's vision? ...or will you merely "f" bomb again? best,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Davis Junior Member (Idle past 4948 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
I just got my copy of his book. It's not like I thought. It's main theme is Thomas Aquinas' general revelation and special revelation discussion and he calls it dual revelation.
Here's the dirty little secret. Almost all young earth creationists embrace Henry Morris's flood geology where the sedimentary rocks are remnant global flood deposits. Morris actually borrowed it from early 20th century creationist George Mcready Price, yet did not acknowledge that in his 1961 book. He finally acknowledged it in the 1980s. In his 1961 book, he deceptively claims he got this info from ancient writers, such as Augustine. What people do not know is Price was a Seventh Day Adventice and Price came up with this brand of flood geology from his spiritual role model Seventh Day Adventice co-founder Ellen White. In her teenage years, she had a vision that God took her back in time to the flood to watch and she then exclaimed God told her fossils and the rocks were proof of this. The significance of this is that almost ALL young earth creationists pin their entire "science" upon this particular flood geology. I'm sure none of them know it came from a teenage seventh day adventist. best, Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given. Edited by Jeff Davis, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024