99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

quote:

---

I think evolutionists can contradict themselves.

---

Sure. A scientist will admit an error far faster than a creationist. Bet on it.

quote:

---

I also feel they uphold one definate rule, 'agree with each other at all times, even when we contradict ourselves in our much speaking.'

---

Utter crap. There is no such agreement.

quote:

---

I dont think the evidence is that impressive, even when I ask questions.

---

I don't think you have ever understood the evidence.

quote:

---

Besides it doesn't mean creationists have all dissapeared, just 'cause they don't respond to every little question.

---

It does suggest that those present can't respond.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Geologists rarely agree on anything... especially if it comes out of someone else's mind.

---

This implies that sometimes a geologist will disagree with what is in his or her own mind. Interesting....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

There is no perfect way to run this site but my only suggestion on how to make it fair... is to resign your position as owner and runner of this sight and give your position to a neutral person who possibly doesnt care how the world came about.

---

You might want to consider that some of us may not care a priori how the world came about, but simply follow the evidence to a conclusion.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The hebrew word used in the bible does not exactly translate to 'day'. 'Day' is one of it's possible meanings, it can also mean an 'unspecified' length of time.

---

I would like to point you to a brief exchange I had with TC. EvC Forum: "Creation Science" on astrophysics?And to another exchange here: EvC Forum: Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you consider "Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary" inaccurate on this point? Is it an inferior source? Or misquoted?

---

No. Read carefully what it says. TC's post has the relevant portion outlined in red. EvC Forum: "Creation Science" on astrophysics?Strongs gives YOWM to mean a literal day-- from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunrise to the next-- or a figurative 'day.' This latter is 'a space of time defined by an associated term.' In the relevant texts of Genesis, there are no associated terms.

quote:

---

While I do not doubt this is true, I have little trouble with the idea that word meanings may well have changed since the biblical times, so the opinions of modern hebrew speakers might not be directly relevant.

---

Certainly meanings have changed with time. However, there is Hebrew literature and commentary dating back two thousand years -- masses of it. This man's library is full of this stuff-- thousands of volumes. So I am pretty confident he has a good grasp of the language, at least as far back as a couple thousand years ago. Prior to that, it becomes more tricky. Hebrew had a bad spell and nearly vanished altogether. Some of the language was lost. Now, if you ( general ) want to argue that this very convenient bit was lost, as far as I can determine, it is going to be an uphill battle. I haven't been able to find any academic sources to verify the much repeated 'day can mean age' idea.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-11-2003]

quote:

---

You're not going to tell me that Hebrew doesn't allow poetic license, are you?

---

This can't be used as an argument. You need something better than 'it could be poetic license' or you end up with a situation where anything can mean anything. There is nothing in Gen. 1 to suggest that YOWM means anything but an evening to evening day. Gen. 2 does use the construction BYOWM-- the 'B' meaning 'in'-- so you end up with 'in the day.' You might be able to argue that this means 'an indefinite time' but that doesn't fix Gen. 1.I've argued this point several times hoping that someone could provide some scholarly support for the assertion, but so far no one has.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Why are you quoting me out of context?

---

How can I quote you out of context when your post is just above mine? The context is less than twenty lines away.

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about Genesis. Or the Bible, for that matter.

---

This branch of the thread has been about Genesis since about post # 61. You responded to post # 107, which is quite plainly about Genesis. Post #106 concluded a brief exchange Mr. Jack and I had about Genesis. Since you posted to the thread it seemed fairly reasonable to assume that you were joining the conversation.

quote:

---

Rrhain stated rather vehemently that if Hebrew (the language I take that to mean, not the body of Hebrew words that make up the Hebrew bible) wants to express an indefinite period of time by way of the concept 'day', then the words 'evening' and 'morning' cannot be used.

---

I believe that Rhhain meant rather specifically the phrasing in Genesis of 'and the evening and the morning were the first day.' I don't think he meant the words 'evening' and 'morning' couldn't appear anywhere in the sentence, no matter how it is constructed.

quote:

---

And I gave an example of a sentence that uses those words to indicate an indefinite period of time and asked him to imagine it to be translated into Hebrew. That's not an impossibility, is it?

---

No. It could be done, which is why I didn't argue about your suggestion but instead pointed out that it doesn't get you anywhere. Given the context of the thread, it seems an appropriate response. If your sole purpose was to argue a theoretical possibility, I suppose there is no more to be said.

quote:

---

But now that we ARE talking about Genesis, 'poetic license' doesn't necessarily mean you "end up with a situation where anything can mean anything."

---

You don't talk much with fundamentalists do you?

quote:

---

If someone wants his public to understand what he's talking about, his poetic license goes only so far. If he talks about concepts of time, he uses metaphors that can be understood as being about time.

---

Ah... correct. Now we are moving out of 'what can be done' and into 'what actually was done.' In other words, we are getting better than 'it could be poetic license' by analysing the text and trying to find what sort of symbolism the ancient Hebrew authors actually used.

quote:

---

I maintain that the argument of poetic license isn't a bad argument at all, vis-a-vis the meaning of what's said in Genesis.

---

Yes, if you could demonstrate similar word usage elsewhere in the text. I agree with you in a sense. It could be poetic license, but I see no reason to think it is; and the simple fact that it could be-- with no further evidence-- poetic license is effectively meaningless.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com