It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 161478 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#109021 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
A day on Earth is a 24 hour period, it has always meant that, and it will always mean that. You change the meaning to suit you, thus your definition is invalid.
In Moses' day, as well as in my day, it's always been valid to use "day" to refer to a non-24-hour period. What about in your day? BTW, Moses lived on Earth, and so do I. What about you?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109022 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In Moses' day, as well as in my day, it's always been valid to use "day" to refer to a non-24-hour period. What about in your day? BTW, Moses lived on Earth, and so do I. What about you?
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE 'YOM' THEY WOULD USE BUT F.I. olam.
Or it would be obvious that a tool was used to make the text more prophetic.

By the way: using 'jehovah' is totally wrong.
Wrong when it was first used like that and it never stopped being wrong.
Like writing KAB as khuaabuh.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109023 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You declared incorrect that which I taught and have now proven to be correct. Does that make you the fundie?

No you were incorrect about how Gen 1 defines a day in very simple terms. It was so simple that even a fundy SHOULD understand it.

Your brainwashing forces you to warp reality to fit your programming.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109024 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In Moses' day, as well as in my day, it's always been valid to use "day" to refer to a non-24-hour period. What about in your day? BTW, Moses lived on Earth, and so do I. What about you?
Generally speaking, you would have a point.
But we are, as far as i know, discussing the use as it was intended. Priestly source, sabbath.
Genesis 1 (end in the SS at 2:4)

But the other issue.
For concepts like foundation, order, division, make, cut, shape, built, fashion etc.
We also find in numbers BE'RIAH (fem.) to create something entirely from scratch, never seen before. A pit for destruction.
They used three words: BARA, ASAH and KANE.
The latter would be closest to design, smithing, building, fashioning.

Just to complicate it further.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109025 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE 'YOM' THEY WOULD USE BUT F.I. olam.
Or it would be obvious that a tool was used to make the text more prophetic.
By the way: using 'jehovah' is totally wrong.
Wrong when it was first used like that and it never stopped being wrong.
Like writing KAB as khuaabuh.
It appears that it would not be 'olam' they would use, but would stick with 'yom',

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.htm...

Note that, unlike you, I am providing data.

Also, Jehovah is nothing more that an anglicized rendering of an ancient identity for which the original pronunciation is unknown, just as john, juan, and johann are various language renderings of a single "identity". In some language, KAB may be acceptably rendered as khuaabuh.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109026 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You would do well to take note that they are legitimate ways. That's key to not hiding the truth from yourself.
So BARA, ASAH, KANE and we would almost forget HAYA and it's various creations.
Well KAB i put all DATA together, so you can have one long happy read.
Legitemate, happy dog with a bone, no hidden truths...x-mass allover again.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/judaism/T...

The consensus would thus be that genesis 1:1 gives the verb and actor 1:2 decribes the state 1:3 god finds the lightswitch.

So only in genesis 1:3 do we find the first action.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109027 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that it would not be 'olam' they would use, but would stick with 'yom',
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.htm...
Note that, unlike you, I am providing data.
Also, Jehovah is nothing more that an anglicized rendering of an ancient identity for which the original pronunciation is unknown, just as john, juan, and johann are various language renderings of a single "identity". In some language, KAB may be acceptably rendered as khuaabuh.
Jehovah is for people that never understood that you should not pronounce the punctuation and the letters/tetragrammaton. So the punctuation states aoai. The religious folks understand they have to say adonai. YHWH is never pronounced out loud.
And otherwise the choice would be for jahweh in general use.

That's iterated nonsense on me providing no data (several irony-meters again going BOOM) since we allready established that you do not read data unless it is adressed at you personal.
Well i did provide data again.
But you must know that when it comes to being an inspiration you definitely do not make the mark. So data might not be provided to you personal in the first place.

I'll read the link you gave ofcourse, but what happened to your iterated complaint that DATA was not highlighted from more sides.
So i would have expected you to bring several links to the fore, so as to keep up with your own high standards.
As i do by the way.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109028 Jan 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No you were incorrect about how Gen 1 defines a day in very simple terms. It was so simple that even a fundy SHOULD understand it.
Your brainwashing forces you to warp reality to fit your programming.
It's extremely easy for anyone to understand that you didn't mention Genesis 2:4.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109029 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that it would not be 'olam' they would use, but would stick with 'yom',
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.htm...
Note that, unlike you, I am providing data.
Also, Jehovah is nothing more that an anglicized rendering of an ancient identity for which the original pronunciation is unknown, just as john, juan, and johann are various language renderings of a single "identity". In some language, KAB may be acceptably rendered as khuaabuh.
I do not see how your link (i'll print it's content here) would lead you to conclude that they would still apparently rather use yom.
In what circumstances? And why would you conclude so?

quote from link given by KAB:
In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

end quote
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109030 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
So BARA, ASAH, KANE and we would almost forget HAYA and it's various creations.
Well KAB i put all DATA together, so you can have one long happy read.
Legitemate, happy dog with a bone, no hidden truths...x-mass allover again.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/judaism/T...
The consensus would thus be that genesis 1:1 gives the verb and actor 1:2 decribes the state 1:3 god finds the lightswitch.
So only in genesis 1:3 do we find the first action.
In an expression with a subject, object, and verb, which is the action part of the expression? Perhaps you could use Genesis 1:1 to illustrate.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109031 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's extremely easy for anyone to understand that you didn't mention Genesis 2:4.
That was purely refered to, so as to make it clear that the christian Stolen Scriptures have a different chapter break.
So at 2:4 you would find the division.

But YOM again.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3117.htm
Please to take in all DATA provided and note that to make YOM more than a day, they add more hebrew (the odd squiggly formed ones) characters.
But the basic understanding is 24 hours.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109032 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Jehovah is for people that never understood that you should not pronounce the punctuation and the letters/tetragrammaton. So the punctuation states aoai. The religious folks understand they have to say adonai. YHWH is never pronounced out loud.
And otherwise the choice would be for jahweh in general use.
That's iterated nonsense on me providing no data (several irony-meters again going BOOM) since we allready established that you do not read data unless it is adressed at you personal.
Well i did provide data again.
But you must know that when it comes to being an inspiration you definitely do not make the mark. So data might not be provided to you personal in the first place.
I'll read the link you gave ofcourse, but what happened to your iterated complaint that DATA was not highlighted from more sides.
So i would have expected you to bring several links to the fore, so as to keep up with your own high standards.
As i do by the way.
My statement was that you did not provide data with your 'yom''olam' post. BTW, I also reviewed your recent data posts and found nothing pertinent to your 'yom''olam' point. I await your data offering with trepidation. On that note, it might be best if you just provide data without comment, since truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109033 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Jehovah is for people that never understood that you should not pronounce the punctuation and the letters/tetragrammaton. So the punctuation states aoai. The religious folks understand they have to say adonai. YHWH is never pronounced out loud.
And otherwise the choice would be for jahweh in general use.
That's iterated nonsense on me providing no data (several irony-meters again going BOOM) since we allready established that you do not read data unless it is adressed at you personal.
Well i did provide data again.
But you must know that when it comes to being an inspiration you definitely do not make the mark. So data might not be provided to you personal in the first place.
I'll read the link you gave ofcourse, but what happened to your iterated complaint that DATA was not highlighted from more sides.
So i would have expected you to bring several links to the fore, so as to keep up with your own high standards.
As i do by the way.
You didn't provide the rule/law about not pronouncing YHWH God's name.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#109034 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In Moses' day, as well as in my day, it's always been valid to use "day" to refer to a non-24-hour period. What about in your day? BTW, Moses lived on Earth, and so do I. What about you?
Moses was a fictional character in a bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE (talking burning bush, food raining from heaven, demons running around killing first borns, plagues, fire falling from the sky, etc.. classic fairy tale elements). He did not exist and you have ZERO research or empirical evidence that demonstrates that he did.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#109035 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's extremely easy for anyone to understand that you didn't mention Genesis 2:4.
Genesis is a bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE. Why would anyone mention it in intelligent, adult conversation.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109036 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see how your link (i'll print it's content here) would lead you to conclude that they would still apparently rather use yom.
In what circumstances? And why would you conclude so?
quote from link given by KAB:
In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.
end quote
Just try substituting olam, as defined, for yom in Genesis 1:5 ; 2:4. It should be quite obvious it doesn't fit. The contexts of those verses address time periods with definite beginnings and endings. That does not fit the concept of olam.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109037 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's extremely easy for anyone to understand that you didn't mention Genesis 2:4.

The issue (you deceitful little crapbag) was the meaning IN CONTEXT. The context in Ch 1 is clearly defined.

Back to your little, mind control, cult you go.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109038 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't provide the rule/law about not pronouncing YHWH God's name.

The perversion "Jehovah" is a mistranslation based on the ignorance of Hebrew diacritical markings. Once that is known (and it is) the correct pronunciation is (at least very close to)'Yahweh'.

The lies an misunderstandings of modern cultists not withstanding.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109039 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In an expression with a subject, object, and verb, which is the action part of the expression? Perhaps you could use Genesis 1:1 to illustrate.
There are several ways to read heaven. let's say i take that to mean spiritual. And earth thus as material.
And not f.i. form the Marduk myth heaven and earth being mom and dad.
quote:
Taking the sample from the post above, we would get:
1 By/as restrictions rule judges heaven and earth.
All is subject to the ruling including the court=elohym. Or in this case defined the subject.

vso I would normaly say BUT
1:1 -1:3
make one sentence.
So 1:1 S 1:2 a subclause (further reading on that in Holmstedt)1:3 V and O said.' Let light be'
1:1 S 1:3 V O
Verdict said 'lights'!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109040 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just try substituting olam, as defined, for yom in Genesis 1:5 ; 2:4. It should be quite obvious it doesn't fit. The contexts of those verses address time periods with definite beginnings and endings. That does not fit the concept of olam.
Exactly, so we do not go substituting olam in genesis 1, but stick to 24 hour yom.

An other word of caution. the hebrew faith has never gone with the notion of creation ex nihilio.
I allready quoten several statements of what they think went on before. like the calendar starting one year before it starts officially. The moon and sun being there allready. Concepts like wisdom and redemption and vife more first needing to be around.
So it is all a christian invention.

quote:
441, n. 1.
The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.:

end quote

I suppose that because they burn you at the stake or some such church-hobbyism, everybody just went along with the wrong translation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 min yehoshooah adam 3,853
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Nohweh 30,608
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 4 hr Dogen 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 70,561
G-d versus Evolution? 11 hr Dogen 35
News Episode 2: The Birth of Climate Denial 12 hr Subduction Zone 7
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 20 hr Out of the Night 78
More from around the web