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

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

There are 154701 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109281 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, Mr Double Negative. We have evidence.
That we do. But he does not care about evidence (or lacks understanding and the energy to get to grips with scientific articles) but frankly stated that he does not care what anyone thinks.

It's the most pointless poster, by far.
KAB

United States

#109282 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
More than that, it has been refuted.
<quoted text>
Require? What the hell does that mean? It says what it says.
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,

Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4

However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.

Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,

Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.

This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
KAB

United States

#109283 Jan 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How cold is the Earth if the sun is not visible anywhere?
Have you not been outside on a uniformly densely overcast summer day?
KAB

United States

#109284 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that all you got out of that?
My earlier posts on the subject had more references, but this is adequate to end the discussion.
Other parts of the references state that we know how the name was pronounced. Which is correct? The discussion still lacks resolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109285 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
No?

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
KAB wrote:
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Agreed, it is.
KAB wrote:
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
Sorry, not what is written.
KAB

United States

#109286 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No?
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
<quoted text>
Agreed, it is.
<quoted text>
Sorry, not what is written.
Neither is

Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4

what is written.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109287 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
what is written.
I gave you the verses. It *is* what is written. Explain yourself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109288 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was known that Mercury violated Newton's law even before Einstein. It was one of the things that piqued Einsteins curiosity and got him working on the subject.
Yeah I know, but don't spoil my jokes!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109289 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.
Wow. An admission of apologetics.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109291 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that Genesis 1 says what it says. Literally, it does NOT say,
Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4
However, the above is one legitimate possible way to understand "what it says" (i.e., the actual words on the page), although that possibility is out of harmony with confirmed physical data.
Another legitimate way to understand the words on the page is,
Day 4: Sources of illumination became visible in Earth's sky as viewed from Earth.
This option has the added benefit of being harmonious with the physical data.

Actually, the narrative (originally a poetic verse) is not harmonious with the physical data.

But as long as you can pretend....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109292 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Other parts of the references state that we know how the name was pronounced. Which is correct? The discussion still lacks resolution.

Incorrect, as usual.

1. There are references to pronunciation back to the 1st century.
2. Hebrew is essentially a dead language and has changed less than Latin has in the last 2000 years.
3. The meanings of diacritical marks has not changed and it was the in the leaving out of these meanings that lead to the pronunciation error "Jehovah".
4. No modern scholar would make this same error today.
LowellGuy

United States

#109293 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps some background regarding the order of events will prove helpful in forming your perception. I was not born into my present religion. It has been acquired by long term continuing comprehensive study of both the physical and spiritual world. In short, there is no coincidence involved. I have chosen my religion because it is what has proven to be not in conflict with confirmed data, physical and documentary.
And at the expense of your critical thinking skills.
LowellGuy

United States

#109294 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not been outside on a uniformly densely overcast summer day?
Where the entire face of the planet was entirely covered in clouds and not even sunlight was visible? Never.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109295 Jan 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the entire face of the planet was entirely covered in clouds and not even sunlight was visible? Never.
And they never let a little logic get in the way of ardent positions.

1. Looking at the history of all the creation narratives (wiki) or allusions to it (4 in all) we find mesopotamian tales and greek influences (everyone forgets that asia was frankly invested with greeks and thus influences) of matter so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, and which can be devided ever smaller.(Democritos f.i.)

2. If no eyes and awareness are around, who would be there to see?

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/ge...
There is an interesting Ugaritic phrase tu-a-bi-(u?) that may be the same as the Hebrew tohu wa bohu. In one of the polyglot vocabularies tu-a-bi-(u) is equivalent to the Akkadian na-bal-ku-tum and Hurrian tap-su-hu-(u)m-me (RS 20.123:II:23; Tsumura, 1989, 23). The Akkadian phrase occurs twice in the Atr-Hasis Epic. The earth’s womb is said to be na-bal-ku-tum or barren (out of order). It is parallel with the phrase "no plants growing" (Lambert and Millard, 1969, 108:49, 110:59). It is also used for the older phrase u-ul ul-da which clearly means barren, parallel to the phrase "no plants were growing" (Ibid, 78:4).

The LXX
h de gh hn aoratos kai akataskeuastos - But the earth was invisible and unformed

The LXX translates tohu wa bohu as aoratos kai akataskeuastos which means "invisible and unformed." This same word aoratos "invisible" is similar to Hebrew 11:3 ek fainomenwn, meaning "out of unseen things" the world was created. This seems to be related to the platonic ides that the visible world came from the invisible world including the idea of logos.

Another possibility is the way Josephus may have understood it that the earth was covered with water and thick clouds and therefore could not be seen (LCL, 1930, 15).

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109296 Jan 29, 2013
na-(bal-ku-tum)
beel-master
not- ordered ( set, fitting, control/ruled/ position/path)-fused/seal-arm.
UNDIVIDED CLUMP/whole
Or maybe unconnected or uncontrolled.
Naming was giving things existence in the days of yore ( or in places were childmortality is still high), no guided path/unknown.
TUM as used in the text on exorcizing the fat of a sheep before it could be considered pure for offering. i-ir-tum, in which tum is the arm-connection. The hinge one could also say.
ba (noun): piece, share, portion ration wages.
(verb): to give, divide, apportion, to pay.
ra : overflow
ra2: multiplication, times, ways
ku6ba: a sealed creature, shelled.
bara4: to spread out, open wide, released, seperated.
bara5,6:kings

Bara is only used in association with Elohym.
But one probably took the form: par2 +-a-'here': exclude +here= put outside = make to be outstanding.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109297 Jan 29, 2013
After scrutinizing all the sodden (Soden etc.) dictionaries, i found the most simple translation to be:
NA-NO
BAL-CARRY
KU-GO
TUM-COMMAND
:)
More lyricaly but not entirely correct would be:
No holding (chaos, carry) image(seal, fused) strenght (arm symbolical)

emuuqum-garment e mu ku um and all sorts of variants. But we also often find KU alone as form of 'to go'.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109298 Jan 29, 2013
A-BA water'+ share-overflow'
Come back in the form of prayer (+ZU), ruling and might, like f.i. rabi or raba. Particulary the word 'overflow'-ra would signify a sort of divinity (god-kinging) at work.
BARA would form a double overflow. Share Abundance.

In Sumer and later a command-staff would be carried, and the main task was making channels and dividing water. So the ruler was a sort of water-engineer.
Symbolically we find that back in the moses tale.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109299 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "name" (identifier) stems from a concept not sounds, just as the concept of ignorance is not a word or sound, but we give it a label so we can handily talk about it. If I don't use a recognized label, discussion and clear communication involving the concept becomes more difficult.
If you collected $.25 from every person that really cared about this subject, you still wouldn't have enough to buy a cup of coffee.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109300 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
And they never let a little logic get in the way of ardent positions.
1. Looking at the history of all the creation narratives (wiki) or allusions to it (4 in all) we find mesopotamian tales and greek influences (everyone forgets that asia was frankly invested with greeks and thus influences) of matter so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, and which can be devided ever smaller.(Democritos f.i.)
2. If no eyes and awareness are around, who would be there to see?
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/ge...
There is an interesting Ugaritic phrase tu-a-bi-(u?) that may be the same as the Hebrew tohu wa bohu. In one of the polyglot vocabularies tu-a-bi-(u) is equivalent to the Akkadian na-bal-ku-tum and Hurrian tap-su-hu-(u)m-me (RS 20.123:II:23; Tsumura, 1989, 23). The Akkadian phrase occurs twice in the Atr-Hasis Epic. The earth’s womb is said to be na-bal-ku-tum or barren (out of order). It is parallel with the phrase "no plants growing" (Lambert and Millard, 1969, 108:49, 110:59). It is also used for the older phrase u-ul ul-da which clearly means barren, parallel to the phrase "no plants were growing" (Ibid, 78:4).
The LXX
h de gh hn aoratos kai akataskeuastos - But the earth was invisible and unformed
The LXX translates tohu wa bohu as aoratos kai akataskeuastos which means "invisible and unformed." This same word aoratos "invisible" is similar to Hebrew 11:3 ek fainomenwn, meaning "out of unseen things" the world was created. This seems to be related to the platonic ides that the visible world came from the invisible world including the idea of logos.
Another possibility is the way Josephus may have understood it that the earth was covered with water and thick clouds and therefore could not be seen (LCL, 1930, 15).

Another nice post MAAT. I read your posts with interest even though I don't always respond to them. Very interesting points.

Thanks for the fascinating ideas.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109301 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Naming was giving things existence in the days of yore

Giving existence and also giving a means of controlling.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min It aint necessari... 216,728
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min Another Damn Liberal 48,576
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 15 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web