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

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

There are 142726 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.

“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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109041 Jan 27, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109042 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't provide the rule/law about not pronouncing YHWH God's name.
There would be no point.(I could point to deut....)
But the greeks made it into sound.
Where everyone else would just go with Moses.
eyeh: I am talked to you.
Or tell them I will be (-come) whatever you tell them.

On a lot of scrolls you will simply find four dots.

I think the use of 'lord' or adonai can be traced back to the greek/aramaic/syiac/assyrian understanding of /A//U/.
That would mean, with a view little pronounciation-aids, as much in their lingo as 'Lord'.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109043 Jan 27, 2013
few-view

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109044 Jan 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't provide the rule/law about not pronouncing YHWH God's name.
Not what you will expect:

"Know this day and set it upon your heart that Y-H-W-H is elohim (Deut. 4:39)" -- that God within you is the transcendent. And the verse concludes: "There is nothing else."

Alluding to an all-inclusive but at the same time overreaching (in case we missed something) panentheism. Which becomes more understandable when doing away with the silly genesis 1 translation and creatio ex nihilio.
We no longer have to use roman concepts and see the pope as placeholder for 'god' on earth, or some the church as the body of the son taking his place.(limited concepts) So why still stick to their definitions-books and translations?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#109045 Jan 27, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Note 7d in your reference, Gen. 2:4 citation
KAB

Oxford, NC

#109046 Jan 27, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ah, but he had his day!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109047 Jan 27, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Of course he does! Didn't you see where he said the Bible is true? Try to keep up.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109048 Jan 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, what you said was wrong. Now we know you know nothing of chemistry. You at best have a high school level of knowledge of the science.
Seeing that you failed at chemistry I am very sure you failed at showing that Neanderthal did not interbreed with Homo sapiens.
When you want to learn a bit drop me a line.
There is much to learn, and thank you for the offer, but I choose to use unbiased ntelligent sources. All you have is arrogance, and you're not very good at that.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109049 Jan 27, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Marky, if you don't like my explanation of why men have boobies, what's your explanation?
For the same reason we have hair in our nose. Our designer wanted them there. If men didn't, then the offspring of the 2 genders may or may not have them. So GOD designed human life where both denders have nipples so that genetically, female off spring would be born with them making them capable of nursing their own young later in life. If evolution be true, male nipples should have disappeared millions of years ago!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Did our Intelligent Designer endow the entire mammal class with an organ which only half of us will ever use?
Yes, not that we need it, but so our offspring that will need them will have them. Obviously GOD put more thought into this than you have.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109050 Jan 27, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
...but no life without molecules. Right?
In general...Right.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109051 Jan 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Mythical scenario? Ignorance and arrogance? You support that the Earth was created before Sol was! 23 hour days? Was the Torah written in Moses' Fortress of Solitude or by elves in his workshop??
A mythical scenario? I did not write this:
"3 And God said,Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day."
How by God or the Heavens do you construe that MY conclusions are flawed when you are contending that a "day" in the Torah could have meant a period of light north of the Arctic Circle?
I'm not contending that, you are. You are the one falsely claiming that a day is defined as having to do with light and dark. If that be the case, how do you explain......

&#9668; 2 Peter 3:8 &#9658;


New International Version (1984)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

So the sun can rise and set no less than 365,000 times, before 1 day is complete. So you are forced to settle into your mire of unknowingness as you try to judge and limit what the creator of the universe can or can not do!!

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#109052 Jan 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>For the same reason we have hair in our nose. Our designer wanted them there. If men didn't, then the offspring of the 2 genders may or may not have them. So GOD designed human life where both denders have nipples so that genetically, female off spring would be born with them making them capable of nursing their own young later in life. If evolution be true, male nipples should have disappeared millions of years ago!!<quoted text>Yes, not that we need it, but so our offspring that will need them will have them. Obviously GOD put more thought into this than you have.
Proove it. Saying it isn't proof.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109053 Jan 27, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You crow continually that your opinions concerning your God are based on Faith (belief without evidence).
You are wrong again. That is blind faith. My beliefs are faith based, but they are far from blind faith.
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim that the things you imagine manifest themselves in reality, but never in a way that is unambiguous enough to examine.
Well let's put that claim to the test. I say that due to the extrene complexity of even the most simple of life forms, that random, without aim or method, haphazard, naturalistic means can not produce life. That an intelligence is demaded for this kind of extreme complexity. Examine that and show me an observation that violates my faith based belief and proves my conclusion as impossible.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#109054 Jan 27, 2013
I asked you some questions a while back. Did you ever answer them?

If no one sees the murder than the murderer cannot be tried or convicted even if there is evidence that tells a story of the murderer committing the murder according to how you view evidence. Any crime will do, but I figure why waste time on penny ante crimes and go for the gold.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109055 Jan 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Proove it. Saying it isn't proof.
I don't have to prove it. You'll have to set up a meeting with GOD for that. I was just giving another poster of why males may still have nipples.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#109056 Jan 27, 2013
marksman, let me know your thought on this in the morning. I am not staying up any later for you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109057 Jan 27, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps he's using a Genesis definition of "day": "any length of time which is convenient to support a story".
Maybe you should read the other 65 books of the bible because they may explain, like in this case, the ignorance of your conclusions.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 20,671
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 4 hr Chimney1 304
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Chimney1 172,004
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... 7 hr Dopy 1
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 7 hr Chimney1 54
More from around the web