-
let the video run to watch all the vids. No way is evolution true, no way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tPoHDWrlXA&p=84544B99A3F660E7&index=8&playnext=3
-
let the video run to watch all the vids. No way is evolution true, no way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tPoHDWrlXA&p=84544B99A3F660E7&index=8&playnext=3
who says evolution and genesis are mutually exclusive? maybe 4.5 billion years to us is like 6 days to god.
-
Maybe I don't fully understand every concept of evolution but why is it that the ape ancestor we supposedly evolved from is now human and a chimpanzee has stayed the same since the dawn of its species coming into existence?
They're saying our ape ancestor expressed traits that improved its survival and were passed on over time and eventually traits kept changing and now we are modern man? Why do other species not show this? Why are other species the same as they were a bajillion years ago?
-
Maybe I don't fully understand every concept of evolution but why is it that the ape ancestor we supposedly evolved from is now human and a chimpanzee has stayed the same since the dawn of its species coming into existence?
They're saying our ape ancestor expressed traits that improved its survival and were passed on over time and eventually traits kept changing and now we are modern man? Why do other species not show this? Why are other species the same as they were a bajillion years ago?
possibly because of differences in location. humans ended up walking upright when the Himalayans formed, blocking clouds from reaching Africa. this caused chunks of the rain forest to recede, and form the Savannah, the ability to sing from trees became useless and it became much more useful to walk upright. the chimpanzees were probably in a different location.
chromosome 2 use to be 2 separate chromosomes. which is why apes have 24 pairs and humans have 23
-
Maybe I don't fully understand every concept of evolution but why is it that the ape ancestor we supposedly evolved from is now human and a chimpanzee has stayed the same since the dawn of its species coming into existence?
They're saying our ape ancestor expressed traits that improved its survival and were passed on over time and eventually traits kept changing and now we are modern man? Why do other species not show this? Why are other species the same as they were a bajillion years ago?
Well, that's not true. There was a "common ancestor." The "common ancestor" was not "an ape" like the one we see today, it was something that preceded both the ape and the human. Thus, "apes" did not become humans. Some precursor (call it "ape-like" if you want - it's more primitive than ape and human) - some precursor to apes and humans became apes and became humans.
-
Maybe I don't fully understand every concept of evolution but why is it that the ape ancestor we supposedly evolved from is now human and a chimpanzee has stayed the same since the dawn of its species coming into existence?
They're saying our ape ancestor expressed traits that improved its survival and were passed on over time and eventually traits kept changing and now we are modern man? Why do other species not show this? Why are other species the same as they were a bajillion years ago?
It really is quite simple for them that want to see... Some chimpanzee's evolved into more ape like creatures while others remained the same... Some ape like creatures evolved into a more human missing link form of creature like we see in parts of the black population while others parts of the population moved on... In my opinion the picture is very plain to see.
-
You're all so stupid.
Everybody knows that white people were invented over fifty million years ago by the greatest NEGRO who ever lived! -- Dr. Yakub - as the result of a laboratory experiment gone awry.
-
Maybe I don't fully understand every concept of evolution but why is it that the ape ancestor we supposedly evolved from is now human and a chimpanzee has stayed the same since the dawn of its species coming into existence?
That's not what evolution claims AT ALL. It says that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. It never claimed that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Chimps have evolved over time too and are very different from the common ancestor. There aren't as many chimpanzee transitionals are as there are for humans because the environment that chimps tend to live in is not very good for fossil preservation, but they are not the same as the common ancestor at all.
They're saying our ape ancestor expressed traits that improved its survival and were passed on over time and eventually traits kept changing and now we are modern man? Why do other species not show this? Why are other species the same as they were a bajillion years ago?
Other species do have transitionals. There are lots and lots of animals where their history can be traced.
-
That guy makes my head hurt trying to say that flying in a V shaped group is a divine miracle. lol It's the most efficient way to fly, there's no reason this wouldn't have been selected for. :::D Birds also know how to sense magnetic fields and this probably helps to determine their migration patterns. Birds are very good at navigation because those who weren't good at navigation didn't survive as well. Climates also change over long periods of time so it's possible that migration routes too have shifted over time.
Homing pigeons finding their way home are not a miracle! :::D They can sense magnetic fields.
-
You're all so stupid.
Everybody knows that white people were invented over fifty million years ago by the greatest NEGRO who ever lived! -- Dr. Yakub - as the result of a laboratory experiment gone awry.
I've always wondered if the Afro-centrists have a way to explain non-blacks and non-whites, like Asian people
-
According to the Talmud, there were 974 generations before Abraham.
-
I see the book of genesis as similar to evolution.
no where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve.
evolution is being used by communists.
where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve?
-
I see the book of genesis as similar to evolution.
no where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve.
evolution is being used by communists.
where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve?
for starters god created the stars reptimes and sea animals in a completely different order to what evolution claims. You cannot go against gods word.
Whether it was millions of years ago, or 6 000 is irrelvant as yom can mean day or period of time.
But no way did we start off as a allele from a comsmic soup then form such brilliant desings that 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 steven hawkings could not design...
-
I'm not denying God's hand in creation but I think God created natural laws and then worked within them to create, including using evolution. I even think most of what we would consider miracles are based on natural laws God put in place that we don't quite understand.
-
huh? c4j??
-
"who says evolution and genesis are mutually exclusive?"
In fact, it's rather clear that Genesis precludes evolution. In more than one place, Genesis speaks of God stating that both animals and plants are to 'reproduce after their own kind'.
37
-
"who says evolution and genesis are mutually exclusive?"
In fact, it's rather clear that Genesis precludes evolution. In more than one place, Genesis speaks of G-d stating that both animals and plants are to 'reproduce after their own kind'.
37
How does that preclude evolution?
-
I see the book of genesis as similar to evolution.
no where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve.
evolution is being used by communists.
where does it say that you are not allowed to evolve?
for starters G-d created the stars reptimes and sea animals in a completely different order to what evolution claims. You cannot go against gods word.
Whether it was millions of years ago, or 6 000 is irrelvant as yom can mean day or period of time.
But no way did we start off as a allele from a comsmic soup then form such brilliant desings that 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 steven hawkings could not design...
The description of creation in the Book of Genesis might and should not be taken literally.. Even Rabbis say so.
And perhaps evolution is a description of HOW Gd might have created all living things. Bottom line, whether evolution or not, I wasn't there and Gd exists and did everything and it wasn't just a coincidence. If someone proves evolution has 100% true, it doesn't disprove Gd..and if someone proved otherwise, it wouldn't change anything either.
From my point of view, all living things originated from a common ancestor and branched out. How humans came to be as a result if by evolution was Gd's will and might describe Gd's "magic finger".
-
"who says evolution and genesis are mutually exclusive?"
In fact, it's rather clear that Genesis precludes evolution. In more than one place, Genesis speaks of G-d stating that both animals and plants are to 'reproduce after their own kind'.
37
How does that preclude evolution?
How does an amoeba become a worm /become a fish /become a salamander /become a lizard /become a bird /become a rat /become a monkey /become a human (etc, etc, etc) if at each step they are 'reproducing after their own kind' - ???
-
"who says evolution and genesis are mutually exclusive?"
In fact, it's rather clear that Genesis precludes evolution. In more than one place, Genesis speaks of G-d stating that both animals and plants are to 'reproduce after their own kind'.
37
How does that preclude evolution?
How does an amoeba become a worm /become a fish /become a salamander /become a lizard /become a bird /become a rat /become a monkey /become a human (etc, etc, etc) if at each step they are 'reproducing after their own kind' - ???
It didn't. That question reflects a misunderstanding of evolution.
Offspring are born with mutations, and even moreso variations, all the time. Some are evolutionarily useful, and some are detrimental. The useful ones survive and are reproduced in subsequent offspring. The changes don't happen on a macro scale all at once in a flurry. Changes develop over very long periods of time.
There is an example we have witnessed with our own eyes. The peppered moth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Its characteristic color "changed" due to selection by environmental pressure. This does not mean that there was not reproduction of its own kind. There was. Slight alterations are latent potentially due to the presence of multiple alleles that determine the phenotype of various genes. Some phenotypes become more and less common over time. And new developments occur due to mutation as well (there are other examples for this).
Let me ask you this - When famous relief pitcher Antonio Alfonseca was born with 6 fingers, was that also a violation of the genesis description that animals will "reproduce after their own kind?"
There are many people born with 6 fingers even though their parents have 5.
-
A mutation does not evolution make...
Evolution discusses one organism becoming another completely different organism, not simply a genetic mutation.
-
A mutation does not evolution make...
Evolution discusses one organism becoming another completely different organism, not simply a genetic mutation.
variation+selection+time
-
A mutation does not evolution make...
Evolution discusses one organism becoming another completely different organism, not simply a genetic mutation.
Not exactly. There are many different ways it can happen. Before airplanes and boats, there were geographic isolations of common animals that evolved into two different species. It might have taken 1000's to 10,000's of years..maybe more...
-
Sometimes different species can even form without there being that much distance or separation. There can be microclimates in the same canyon that differ, for example, and require different survival techniques. The important thing is reproductive separation.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk watch this video. explains evolution fairly well.
-
A mutation does not evolution make...
Evolution discusses one organism becoming another completely different organism, not simply a genetic mutation.
???
What you say here is strange. Genetic mutation is the mechanism by which one organism, given a selection pressure for that mutation and enough time to proliferate phenotypes expressing that mutation, will eventually become a new organism.
An allelic variation is simply a microcosm. But it directly addressed Ithaca's reading of Genesis because I want to know where the line is drawn in Ithaca's opinion and how he is reading that passage as precluding evolution. To me it doesn't make much sense to read it that way.
And in the example above, in all the gradual steps along the way over thousands of years, each organism is certainly reproducing its own kind. It is only once we look at the bigger picture by spreading out the picture to cover thousands to millions of years that we can say such and such became such and such. But that really didn't happen in one reproductive event!
-
Why five fingers? Why five toes? Why not eight fingers? At least it would be easier to type... There are so many things about the human body which are not optimal so far as 'survival of the fittest' rules go.
I am not going to fight the theory, but I will ask many, many questions.
Also I assume you believe that Beresheit contains truth? If so there are so many questions about evolution...
I will attempt to discuss those issues in the Torah section, as we are starting with the first Parasha of Genesis this coming Shabbat...
-
Why five fingers? Why five toes? Why not eight fingers?
The first amphibians had more than 5 fingers, like Acanthostega, etc. The fact that many land creatures tend to have a pattern of 5 fingers and toes is one of those things that suggests a common ancestor had that pattern.
At least it would be easier to type... There are so many things about the human body which are not optimal so far as 'survival of the fittest' rules go.
Usually, that's an argument used by atheists against Divine design.
In fact in order for that to be true and God to still be real, it has to be accounted for either by saying that these imperfections are relics of the process God used (such as evolution, which leaves such traces such as a blind spot in people's eyes) or that God deliberately makes things with imperfections in this world.
I think it could be both.
I am not going to fight the theory, but I will ask many, many questions.
That's very good! I learned about it in school but I probably learned even more about it asking questions on talk.origins and other places.
Also I assume you believe that Beresheit contains truth? If so there are so many questions about evolution...
It's not science's obligation to fall into line with the Bible, just to gather evidence and draw meaningful conclusions from that evidence using the scientific method. If the Bible is true (and I think most people on this board including me believe that it is), then science will be compatible. However the Bible is not meant as a science book and I believe there is a lot of allegory, especially in the book you mentioned.
-
Why are you guys going along with the communists in thinking of evolution as a form of religion?
Why can't it be a science alone?
Thru adaptation and mutation we get colorful monkeys for example or colorful fish. Or cancer.
-
Why five fingers? Why five toes? Why not eight fingers? At least it would be easier to type... There are so many things about the human body which are not optimal so far as 'survival of the fittest' rules go.
The opposable thumb is actually quite "optimal" in the sense that it is a massive improvement over having fingers without a thumb.
I'm not sure it's been tested whether 8 fingers would be more optimal. I actually don't understand what you're saying here.
1. What you said seems to have no relation to any comments made thus far in this thread.
2. Speaking in terms of belief, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect God to make man with an "optimal" or more efficient form rather than making us physically challenged due to awkward and inefficient anatomy? You seem to be claiming the latter! Does that make any sense? I find it surprising that this is your view (although of course the idea is not out of the question either).
Also I assume you believe that Beresheit contains truth? If so there are so many questions about evolution...
I refer you here:
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,49699.0.html
Not sure why you're theologically opposed to the idea. Did Rav Kook believe that Bereshith "contains truth?" Obviously.
I think that a mistake you might be making in being theologically opposed to the notion of evolution is that you are taking the Bereshith account as too literal. I will quote from Rav Kook there who gives us the run-down on what Bereshith really sets out to accomplish:
"The Torah obviously obscures the account of creation and speaks in allusions and parables. Everyone knows that the account of creation is part of the secrets of the Torah. And if all these statements were taken literally, what secrets would there be? ... The essence [of the Genesis narrative] is the knowledge of G-d and the truly moral life." (Letters of Rav Kook, Letter 91.)
My rabbi agrees with this and has expressed this notion many times in our shiur on Sefer Bereshith. God willing I will at some point post the lecture notes from that series of shiurim into the Torah section. I just haven't had time yet. It is a brilliant and insightful set of lectures.
I will attempt to discuss those issues in the Torah section, as we are starting with the first Parasha of Genesis this coming Shabbat...
Looking forward to it - Hagh Sameah, muman.
-
At least it would be easier to type... There are so many things about the human body which are not optimal so far as 'survival of the fittest' rules go.
Usually, that's an argument used by atheists against Divine design.
Heh, that's exactly what I was thinking. Pretty ironic.
In fact in order for that to be true and G-d to still be real, it has to be accounted for either by saying that these imperfections are relics of the process G-d used (such as evolution, which leaves such traces such as a blind spot in people's eyes) or that G-d deliberately makes things with imperfections in this world.
I think it could be both.
That, or it's very debatable that these things really constitute imperfections. By whose definitions? How is that established? In my mind, it may be a combination of any or all 3 of these things (the 2 you mentioned, plus this).
Also I assume you believe that Beresheit contains truth? If so there are so many questions about evolution...
It's not science's obligation to fall into line with the Bible, just to gather evidence and draw meaningful conclusions from that evidence using the scientific method. If the Bible is true (and I think most people on this board including me believe that it is), then science will be compatible. However the Bible is not meant as a science book and I believe there is a lot of allegory, especially in the book you mentioned.
Great point. I agree.
-
According to the Talmud, there were 974 generations before Abraham.
I don't know the exact number of generations, but the Talmud number lies for shure in the right range.
-
CREATIONISM vs EVOLUTION
(formerly titled "What's with the five fingers?" )
Chapter 1. Marshall Durbinism (otherwise known as the "Which came first?" debate)
First, there were men already inhabiting Canaan before the Israelites arrived there who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot.
However, science now classifies these people as pre-Underwood racial stock.
But creationism had already provided for gene mutation so better forms of life on Earth would evolve.
And so appeared a new species of man known as Underwood Man - an evolved man created ready and able to use the Underwood Typewriter as soon as it got around to being invented.
This leads us directly to how The Dismal Science of Economics was created.
Chapter 2. Malthusian Theory in a nutshell: The Law of Supply and Demand.
You see, evolution demands new and improved versions from creationism, and creation supplies them in order to meet the demands of evolution .
Nothing could be more simple.
Take for example: Tide Laundry Detergent
Soon after its creation, a new version 'evolved ' -
We know it today as ... "New ! Improved ! Tide Laundry Detergent ! "
So obviously the entire world now awaits the "New ! Improved ! Post-Underwood Man ! "
Consider the facts ...
All of creation recognizes the need for a new mutation which will evolve into a racial stock of man possessing fourteen fingers on his left hand to enable full it access to all typing keys, possessing seven fingers on his middle hand for use on the numbers keys, and possessing a newly evolved two fingered, one thumb right hand, created to allow independent control of a computer mouse!
This is a fact and anyone questioning it will burn in HEll for eternity.
But it is true only for White People.
Chapter 3. Evolution, Creation, and Race - Implications of Dinner Plate Tectonics
Genetic evolution has allowed for mutation to create a new and improved Race. Diasporikus Afrikanus racial stock will sport a fingerless left hand permanently extended with its palm up - as if anticipating a check payment. It's newly evolved right hand will be created still able to grasp a knife using all fingers and opposing thumb, but will be a newly evolved hand with only one tactile digit - the first finger - for use in pulling triggers. However, in order to use the first finger in this manner the entire right hand must always be in the palms down position, so that the pistol is held sideways.
- The author is confident that this treatise confirms everything so far known, and will heal the deep divisions in society.
- For printable .pdf version click here: .........
- For purchasing copies for your synagogues and churches contact MassuhDGoodName c/o JTF.org. Enclose a check or money order made to the amount of $6.13 for each copy desired, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Allow up to 30 days for handling and processing.
- Join MassuhDGoodName on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Craig's List
-
Why are you guys going along with the communists in thinking of evolution as a form of religion?
Why can't it be a science alone?
Thru adaptation and mutation we get colorful monkeys for example or colorful fish. Or cancer.
I think it's because people are taught by their religious leaders that in order to be a good follower of God they have to deny parts of science. I obviously disagree with that.
-
I think it's because people are taught by their religious leaders that in order to be a good follower of G-d they have to deny parts of science. I obviously disagree with that.
Sorry but I just don't believe in evolution and never will. It takes more faith for me to believe in it than instantaneous creation.
-
I think it's because people are taught by their religious leaders that in order to be a good follower of G-d they have to deny parts of science. I obviously disagree with that.
Sorry but I just don't believe in evolution and never will. It takes more faith for me to believe in it than instantaneous creation.
Me too.
-
I think it's because people are taught by their religious leaders that in order to be a good follower of G-d they have to deny parts of science. I obviously disagree with that.
Sorry but I just don't believe in evolution and never will. It takes more faith for me to believe in it than instantaneous creation.
Me too.
I understand and I respect why you both feel that way. You're both still very smart and very good people.
-
That, or it's very debatable that these things really constitute imperfections. By whose definitions? How is that established? In my mind, it may be a combination of any or all 3 of these things (the 2 you mentioned, plus this).
I didn't think of that. You're very right.
-
There we go again, "believe in evolution".
Communists and socialists and other leftist scum "believe in evolution". Why is it a religion? It's a science. Like 1 + 1 = 2. Do you believe in physics or chemistry or math? Do you believe in addition? Do you believe in subtraction?
Where does it say that we are not allowed to evolve?
-
Honestly the biggest problem I have with evolution is the fact that it stands in stark contrast to an elemental aspect of Torah.
Torah teaches us that Humanity is very much different from animal life. Animals were created first, but man was created specially. Man was not, by the Torah account, created from any other previous creation. Man was uniquely formed from the Earth, while the animals were in fact molded from prior life forms. Man was unique in that he was made from the earth, yet he was given a unique soul, what is called in the Torah, the Tzelem Elokim or the Image of G-d. None of the animals were created in the image of the Creator, yet man was unique from all the other creations.
This is an elemental idea in Judaism and the main reason I have problems with currently evolutionary science. The scientists want to tell us that humanity is just another form of animal life, which Torah starkly says we are not. Humanity is the divine image and physicality is built into the animal world. I don't expect science to prove that Hashem BREATHED the soul of man into the physical body. But I sure don't believe that we are the same as the dog and the pig... Humans have a soul while animals do not have the divine soul which Hashem created ONLY for man.
I doubt that anyone will be able to explain this. This is why I pretty much give up on the theory of evolution...
-
Re: "None of the animals were created in the image of the Creator, yet man was unique from all the other creations. "
I do believe that all animals have souls, albeit lesser souls than that of a human being.
And I believe that it is man's obligation to respect animal life and do what he can to care for them.
Sometimes, however, I think that perhaps reincarnation is real, and that each animal is actually a complete human soul being forced by Ha'Shem to exist in one of the lower life forms, unable to fully express language, art, the sciences, forced to forage for food as well as be hunted by predators, yet fully aware of the fact ... hence suffering.
Can't prove it either way, but from studying wild animals up close it's clear to me that many of them are certainly intelligent in their own way, have feelings, suffer, and care for their offspring.
There are exceptions to this generality, of course, but I am unable to conclude that most of the higher animals are purely instinct driven and unable to think and plan.
There are also more than a few examples of human life which make an extraordinarily excellent case for the argument that humanity is divided into higher and lower forms - some incapable of higher thought and intellectual creativity, bestial, and completely unaware that they exist in that condition.
It's all a real puzzlement, for there are many gentle animals on Earth which are non-aggressive, vegetarian, and protect and instruct their offspring, while I have yet to learn of a human being which isn't corrupt, devious, selfish, greedy, and capable of violence every second of the day.
It makes me wonder sometimes whether mankind really is a higher life form.
Sure is difficult to accept that religious tenet as unquestionable if one looks around at the state of things in the world today.
And of course, there's always that argument stating "Well, if G-d is so Loving, Merciful, Omnipotent, and Omniscient, why does He set up this apparently insane world and allow it to continue daily with all the horrors, genocides, wars, murders, rapes, etc. ?
We are told by religious texts that all of this is a "trial period" so that we can all use "free will" to act as we see fit, die, and then face "Judgment Day" afterwards; standing trial for our behaviors here.
But what's the point of it all?
Does G-d need to play a live video game up in "Heaven" watching us destroy and ruin everything for His own enjoyment?
And ... If He has all the Power and Knowledge, then He surely sees that we're a pretty disgusting creation, so WHY doesn't He just put an end to this whole charade IMMEDIATELY ?
What's the POINT?!
I have yet, to date, never received a single acceptable answer to those last questions other than to have a religious leader always resort to their "final" say on the subject in a desperate attempt to silence all questioners:
"One has no right to question G-d, my son!" -- "He alone knows the reason and the purpose why we must go on living this way" -- "All part of his "Divine Plan" far beyond YOUR ability to understand, let alone to question!"
And to this "answer" the Jewish "added response" is "Only the Holy One of Israel understands why this all necessary to enable Moshiach's appearance and 1,000 Year Reign!' ... "Yours is not to question!" ... "But only to have Faith!" ... "So go away and do not ever ask questions like that again!!! >:( "
Any takers?
WARNING: Anyone attempting to answer these questions by "begging the question" - that is, by merely reiterating the same illogical answers I have already listed will be responded to by my calling them MORON! .
Do not make the mistake of thinking you're going to set me straight on all this by begging the question!
DON'T YOU DARE respond with "Well of course it's all true because I believe it's true!"
You'd better first think very carefully about your responses or risk the wrath of MassuhD!
>:( :::D
-
Evolution is not a religion, it is just a part of the atheist religion. It's hard to separate atheism from evolution. Atheists control the academic establishments, and often atheists hold conventions in academic venues which scientists and evolution topics play a big part in. The academic establishments have a large number of G-d-hating minions that work tirelessly on researching ways that atheists can cover their backs on the issue of the obvious existence of G-d, which they then indoctrinate students with unchallenged. It's sort of like how academic establishments push the idea that global warming is man-made, because atheists are also anti-human.
my biology teacher specifically said last year that evolution does not negate religion.
-
Evolution is not a religion, it is just a part of the atheist religion. It's hard to separate atheism from evolution. Atheists control the academic establishments, and often atheists hold conventions in academic venues which scientists and evolution topics play a big part in. The academic establishments have a large number of G-d-hating minions that work tirelessly on researching ways that atheists can cover their backs on the issue of the obvious existence of G-d, which they then indoctrinate students with unchallenged. It's sort of like how academic establishments push the idea that global warming is man-made, because atheists are also anti-human.
my biology teacher specifically said last year that evolution does not negate religion.
So I guess that makes it so....
-
Massuh,
The whole purpose of life is to live it as best as we can, according to the laws which we have been given.
Why do football players play on a football field? That is where the action of the game takes place. Why do baseball players play on a baseball diamond? Because that is where the action of baseball takes place. Why do we have to live a life which has such a wide variation of pleasure and suffering? Because that is where the action of living takes place...
It seems like such an easy answer to me.
-
CREATIONISM vs EVOLUTION
(formerly titled "What's with the five fingers?" )
Chapter 1. Marshall Durbinism (otherwise known as the "Which came first?" debate)
First, there were men already inhabiting Canaan before the Israelites arrived there who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot.
However, science now classifies these people as pre-Underwood racial stock.
But creationism had already provided for gene mutation so better forms of life on Earth would evolve.
And so appeared a new species of man known as Underwood Man - an evolved man created ready and able to use the Underwood Typewriter as soon as it got around to being invented.
This leads us directly to how The Dismal Science of Economics was created.
Chapter 2. Malthusian Theory in a nutshell: The Law of Supply and Demand.
You see, evolution demands new and improved versions from creationism, and creation supplies them in order to meet the demands of evolution .
Nothing could be more simple.
Take for example: Tide Laundry Detergent
Soon after its creation, a new version 'evolved ' -
We know it today as ... "New ! Improved ! Tide Laundry Detergent ! "
So obviously the entire world now awaits the "New ! Improved ! Post-Underwood Man ! "
Consider the facts ...
All of creation recognizes the need for a new mutation which will evolve into a racial stock of man possessing fourteen fingers on his left hand to enable full it access to all typing keys, possessing seven fingers on his middle hand for use on the numbers keys, and possessing a newly evolved two fingered, one thumb right hand, created to allow independent control of a computer mouse!
This is a fact and anyone questioning it will burn in HEll for eternity.
But it is true only for White People.
Chapter 3. Evolution, Creation, and Race - Implications of Dinner Plate Tectonics
Genetic evolution has allowed for mutation to create a new and improved Race. Diasporikus Afrikanus racial stock will sport a fingerless left hand permanently extended with its palm up - as if anticipating a check payment. It's newly evolved right hand will be created still able to grasp a knife using all fingers and opposing thumb, but will be a newly evolved hand with only one tactile digit - the first finger - for use in pulling triggers. However, in order to use the first finger in this manner the entire right hand must always be in the palms down position, so that the pistol is held sideways.
- The author is confident that this treatise confirms everything so far known, and will heal the deep divisions in society.
- For printable .pdf version click here: .........
- For purchasing copies for your synagogues and churches contact MassuhDGoodName c/o JTF.org. Enclose a check or money order made to the amount of $6.13 for each copy desired, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Allow up to 30 days for handling and processing.
- Join MassuhDGoodName on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Craig's List
:::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
One of your best!
-
Honestly the biggest problem I have with evolution is the fact that it stands in stark contrast to an elemental aspect of Torah.
Torah teaches us that Humanity is very much different from animal life. Animals were created first, but man was created specially. Man was not, by the Torah account, created from any other previous creation. Man was uniquely formed from the Earth, while the animals were in fact molded from prior life forms. Man was unique in that he was made from the earth, yet he was given a unique soul, what is called in the Torah, the Tzelem Elokim or the Image of G-d. None of the animals were created in the image of the Creator, yet man was unique from all the other creations.
This is an elemental idea in Judaism and the main reason I have problems with currently evolutionary science. The scientists want to tell us that humanity is just another form of animal life, which Torah starkly says we are not. Humanity is the divine image and physicality is built into the animal world. I don't expect science to prove that Hashem BREATHED the soul of man into the physical body. But I sure don't believe that we are the same as the dog and the pig... Humans have a soul while animals do not have the divine soul which Hashem created ONLY for man.
I doubt that anyone will be able to explain this. This is why I pretty much give up on the theory of evolution...
You're right, Muman, on this point. I'm sure there is an explanation or perhaps an explanation that will be discovered to prove your point.
-
Re: "It seems like such an easy answer to me. "
MORON!
-
Honestly the biggest problem I have with evolution is the fact that it stands in stark contrast to an elemental aspect of Torah.
Torah teaches us that Humanity is very much different from animal life. Animals were created first, but man was created specially. Man was not, by the Torah account, created from any other previous creation. Man was uniquely formed from the Earth, while the animals were in fact molded from prior life forms. Man was unique in that he was made from the earth, yet he was given a unique soul, what is called in the Torah, the Tzelem Elokim or the Image of G-d. None of the animals were created in the image of the Creator, yet man was unique from all the other creations.
This is an elemental idea in Judaism and the main reason I have problems with currently evolutionary science. The scientists want to tell us that humanity is just another form of animal life, which Torah starkly says we are not. Humanity is the divine image and physicality is built into the animal world. I don't expect science to prove that Hashem BREATHED the soul of man into the physical body. But I sure don't believe that we are the same as the dog and the pig... Humans have a soul while animals do not have the divine soul which Hashem created ONLY for man.
I doubt that anyone will be able to explain this. This is why I pretty much give up on the theory of evolution...
You're right, Muman, on this point. I'm sure there is an explanation or perhaps an explanation that will be discovered to prove your point.
im gonna go with the fact that the leap to homo sapien was so radical, it was nothing like the previous organisms
-
Re: "It seems like such an easy answer to me. "
MORON!
(http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Pepsi_O_Dolt.jpg)
DOLT!!!
-
Re: "Honestly the biggest problem I have with evolution is the fact that it stands in stark contrast to an elemental aspect of Torah.
The biggest problem I have with evolution is just take a good look at any schwartze - You're gonna' sit there and tell me that is what they evolved into ?
Yew godda' lodda' 'splainin' t' do, Lucy! :laugh:
;D
-
Well Massuh, Barnacles also evolved to lose their brains, so why not blacks?