-
Israel's Chief Scientist dismissed
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3964117,00.html
The leftist Israeli scientific atheist mafia have their way again
-
Of cause he was right. Global Warming and Evolution are semi-religions and like we see they have already an inquisition. In my country the Green party has made proposals to throw "heretics" into jail.
-
LOL. He doesn't really have place as a "chief scientist" if he is skeptical of scientific findings and will deny evidence uncovered by science. A chief scientist is supposed to be someone who believes that the scientific method can uncover true facts and observations about the universe. Perhaps he's better suited as a philosophy professor or creative writer.
-
There are no two more dubious theories than evolution and global warming!
-
im willing to listen to stuff that dismisses global warming since the temperature declined in 08
evolution on the other hand, im willing to listen to different versions of it, but (in a scientific discussion) i wont take young-earth creationism seriously (we have seen macro evolution).
-
There are no two more dubious theories than evolution and global warming!
Global warming may be dubious because the evidence is flimsy.
The evidence for evolution is NOT flimsy and cannot be denied.
-
There are no two more dubious theories than evolution and global warming!
Global warming may be dubious because the evidence is flimsy.
The evidence for evolution is NOT flimsy and cannot be denied.
fact- a new species of moth was made because of pollution and the need for a new color
fact- KWR-BT is absolutely right
-
Can a tornedo hitting a garbage dumpster create a Boeing 747 airplane?
-
"The theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
-
One does not have to buy the evolution hoax in order to be a scientist. Science doesnt require believing 100% in any one particular theory. I believe that Science is supposed to say that things can be empirically and experimentally reproduced. So it should not matter what a person thinks or believes. Science must be reproducable in order for a theory to be believable. I have never seen any experiment which proves evolution. There are so many scientific questions about it that I believe that we should not attempt to force people to believe it.
It is wrong for the scientific community to exclude people who have valid questions about these theories. In my lifetime I have witnessed science making up stuff as it went along... Every 10-15 years a new theory comes along which everyone "HAS TO" believe in, only to be proven a few years later that the theory was absolute garbage...
-
"The theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
This is a quote for a science fiction novel, but it does not reflect a scientific challenge to the facts uncovered by the many facets of evolution theory.
When someone disputes scientific findings on religious grounds, there is no reason for a scientist or scientifically minded person to take them seriously. Any of these rabbi-philosophers are free to publish their scientific evidence they have uncovered which contradicts evolution theory. Yet none of them do. Oh, that's right, because none of them have uncovered evidence of anything, they are simply fighting against what they perceive to be an impure view from their own theological position. That does not constitute scientific evidence or critique. It's somebody giving their opinion.
-
It's refreshing to see a Jew saying the things that he said, since so many Jews have sold out to the theology of Amalek. Scientists are not allowed to question evolution now and it's the same story more and more so with global warming, which the anti-G-d, anti-human atheist establishment is currently working feverishly to get an academic monopoly on.
Oh please. There is no monopoly except that engineered by facts. Anyone who conducts an experiment that disproves any tenet of evolution or calls it into doubt is free to publish such work. The problem is, those experiments don't exist because they've never happened, and no one is able to produce work that calls evolution into question.
-
Re: "fact- a new species of moth was made because of pollution and the need for a new color "
Incorrect.
This is NOT the teaching of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.
A species of moth in Great Britain naturally exhibited a wide variation in coloration - from very dark to very light, the variation in color allowing the species to occupy a broad ecological niche so that more reproduced each year than fell prey to birds and bats.
By passing on to its offspring both light and dark color genes, the species survived, for it was not easy to be seen and eaten by its predators.
Then the coal industry appeared and the ecological niche which the moth species inhabited changed and became clouded and covered with soot.
The moths from that species with naturally dark coloration were naturally camouflaged against soot covered trees and buildings, were less prone to be spotted by predators, and therefore survived to pass on their genes carrying dark coloration.
Their lighter colored relatives were quickly spotted by birds when resting against dark colored sooty surfaces, and were therefore first to be eaten, thereby removing almost all of the light coloration from the moth gene pool.
Therefore a classic case of Natural Selection took place, whereby a species evolved into an exclusively dark form.
And this example is exactly what Darwinian Evolution teaches.
It does not teach that somehow monkeys somehow just "changed" into human beings or that reptiles somehow just "changed" into flying birds, as is usually believed by people ignorant of what Darwin actually wrote based on his scientific observations.
What Darwin wrote, is that the Primates shared a similar genetic structure, which over a long period of time was changed because genetic variations making up the gene pool became extinct because of natural conditions like storms or climate, or because their genetic line was poorly prepared to outrun predators, or possibly because of lack of intelligence necessary to provide itself food and shelter. This process continued over eons until the gene pools remaining are what we see today. Very simple science....not even close to being the "Satanic Teachings" so many ignoramuses denounce every day.
Don't like it?
-
When President Reagan said that he doubted that Evolution was correct, there were calls for him to be impeached and to have his sanity checked!
The greatest disproof for Evolution is the fossil record!
-
A species of moth in Great Britain naturally exhibited a wide variation in coloration - from very dark to very light, the variation in color allowing the species to occupy a broad ecological niche so that more reproduced each year than fell prey to birds and bats.
By passing on to its offspring both light and dark color genes, the species survived, for it was not easy to be seen and eaten by its predators.
Then the coal industry appeared and the ecological niche which the moth species inhabited changed and became clouded and covered with soot.
The moths from that species with naturally dark coloration were naturally camouflaged against soot covered trees and buildings, were less prone to be spotted by predators, and therefore survived to pass on their genes carrying dark coloration.
Their lighter colored relatives were quickly spotted by birds when resting against dark colored sooty surfaces, and were therefore first to be eaten, thereby removing almost all of the light coloration from the moth gene pool.
Therefore a classic case of Natural Selection took place, whereby a species evolved into an exclusively dark form.
And this example is exactly what Darwinian Evolution teaches.
Indeed it is.
It does not teach that somehow monkeys somehow just "changed" into human beings
"Monkeys" didn't change into humans. A common ancestor to humans and monkeys became humans and also became monkeys, separately. But why would a discussion of moths explain how this happened? They are different cases. There is no reason to believe these separate cases operate under different principles, however!
What Darwin wrote, is that the Primates shared a similar genetic structure, which over a long period of time was changed because genetic variations making up the gene pool became extinct because of natural conditions like storms or climate, or because their genetic line was poorly prepared to outrun predators, or possibly because of lack of intelligence necessary to provide itself food and shelter. This process continued over eons until the gene pools remaining are what we see today. Very simple science....not even close to being the "Satanic Teachings" so many ignoramuses denounce every day.
Indeed the notion of natural selection is rather simple, and it's surprising that some people have such a strong opposition to something so logically compelling.
-
It's refreshing to see a Jew saying the things that he said, since so many Jews have sold out to the theology of Amalek. Scientists are not allowed to question evolution now and it's the same story more and more so with global warming, which the anti-G-d, anti-human atheist establishment is currently working feverishly to get an academic monopoly on.
Oh please. There is no monopoly except that engineered by facts. Anyone who conducts an experiment that disproves any tenet of evolution or calls it into doubt is free to publish such work. The problem is, those experiments don't exist because they've never happened, and no one is able to produce work that calls evolution into question.
There is a monopoly already with evolution, and global warming being caused by man is not a monopoly yet but is quickly becoming a monopoly. They are still building the "tenets" on the global warming hoax around the anti-human aspect of the atheist religion just like they built "tenets" of evolution around the anti-G-d aspect of the atheist religion and anyone who dares interpreting the evidence a different way is anathema (or whatever atheists call it). It would be like submitting a paper proving the Quran is wrong to a bunch of mullahs expecting to get a fair evaluation, no matter how true it is.
This is absurd. You are basically saying that since no one has published articles disproving evolution with experiments that directly address the claims and principles of evolution, that therefore there is a monopoly. That's simply not the case. The reason there are no such publications is because no one has been able to produce experiments which come even close to disproving evolution or its principles.
The entire field of medicine with all its advances operates on the premises of evolution. If evolution were "not true" none of the medicine being developed would ever work.
-
When President Reagan said that he doubted that Evolution was correct, there were calls for him to be impeached and to have his sanity checked!
The greatest disproof for Evolution is the fossil record!
The fossil record is one of the strongest proofs for evolution.
Now are you going to tell me dinosaurs never existed? That dinosaurs existed is proven by the fossil record. What do you have to say? I doubt you will directly address anything I just said.
-
Numerous fossilised dinosaur tracks running next to and on top of human tracks, like the famous Paluxy River prints in Texas, together with the worldwide traditions of "giant dragons" (eg. St.George and the Dragon, the Dragon of China, the Beowulf Epic etc), "monstrous sea serpents", and "gargantuan flying reptiles" on land, sea and air, tears the evolutionary timetable to shreds, and indicates that some dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with men within historical times, although most dinosaurs perished in the Flood.
Iyov himself may have seen some these huge Flood survivors: "Behold now Beheimoh which I created with you...he eats grass like an ox...he moves his tail like a cedar...his bones are like bars of iron...he can drink up a river...he can draw up the Yarden into his mouth. The Leviyoson...his teeth are awesome...the scales of his flesh cannot be sundered...flames shoot from his mouth...he laughs at the arrow and spear...iron is like straw and brass like rotten wood before him....he makes the sea to boil...." (Iyov 40 and 41).
The Talmud's description of the Nochosh in Gan Eden ie. a tall, bipedal, upright walking, reptilian type creature is remarkably dinosaurian. Had it not been cursed, it and its descendants would have been valuable assistants to mankind: "Woe for the loss of that great servant!" (Sanhedrin 59). Rav Elie Munk ztz"l posited that the Bnei Anak were actually dinosaurian in nature cf.the webbed hands and numerous rows of teeth ascribed to these zamzummim (Chullin 60 and Midrash Avkir). Chazal relate of the tremendous skeletal size and part-angelic yichus of the Antediluvians. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai humbled the Emperor Hadrian by showing him the 18 amos long corpses of the original Amorite inhabitants of Jerusalem. Even Moses, who himself was 10 amos tall (Brochos 54) was hard put in despatching the brothers Sichon and Og, who were the last and the least of the antediluvian giants!
"We were as grasshoppers in their sight!" (Bamidbar 13).
The phenomena of giant creatures, such as the 45 foot tall Barosaur, the 50 foot wingspan Pterosaur, the 100 foot long Diplodocus and the 100 ton Chronosaurus, let alone the the Tannin, Leviyoson, Re'em, Rochov, Beheimoh, Shor Habor, Ziz, Sorof M'ofef and Adnei Sadeh of the Tenach and Talmud, is explained by the very far reaching physiological effects of the higher speed of light that prevailed in the past eg. lower fluid viscosity, faster nerve impulses, higher lift-to-drag ratios, more efficient breathing, diffusion, growth, fecundity, blood flow and ion transfer. The fossil record shows that flora and fauna were much larger than today. There once existed mosses 3 feet tall, wheat with kernels the size of fists, dragonflies 4 feet long, 12" cockroaches, shellfish 5 feet across, 10 foot turtles, 50 foot crocodiles and 70 foot sharks!
In Messianic times, the wondrous original size of many of Hashem's creatures will be restored (Sifra, Bechukosai). Help!
-
Re: "In Messianic times, the wondrous original size of many of Hashem's creatures will be restored (Sifra, Bechukosai). Help! "
Can't wait!
I'm gonna' open up a "Reptile World" road attraction next to the Third Temple that'll put the one in Panama City Beach to shame!
Hey!
If "evolution" is a "fact", then how'd the African pygmies get so small? Huh?
And what happened to chickens' lips?
-
Re: "...President Reagan said that he doubted that Evolution was correct... "
He was right!
Reagan proved evolution was a hoax, because his co-star Bonzo the Chimp was a far better actor! ;D
-
Chicken lips were eaten by the negroes, until chickens evolved not to have lips. ;D
-
Re: "Chicken lips were eaten by the negroes, until chickens evolved not to have lips. "
At last! ... Someone who understands science!
But wait! ... did the nigrum then stop eating chickens? :o
-
Can a tornedo hitting a garbage dumpster create a Boeing 747 airplane?
no, but the only thing about evolution that IS random is the mutations. only the successful mutations survive which is how evolution progresses.
-
fact- a new species of moth was made because of pollution and the need for a new color
fact- KWR-BT is absolutely right
You have provided an example of adaptation, not evolution. Two different things, no?
-
Numerous fossilised dinosaur tracks running next to and on top of human tracks, like the famous Paluxy River prints in Texas, together with the worldwide traditions of "giant dragons" (eg. St.George and the Dragon, the Dragon of China, the Beowulf Epic etc), "monstrous sea serpents", and "gargantuan flying reptiles" on land, sea and air, tears the evolutionary timetable to shreds, and indicates that some dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with men within historical times, although most dinosaurs perished in the Flood.
Did you get this from a novel?
If not, you should write your own novels because you are very creative. You might make a really good parnassa off of creative writing like this.
-
It's refreshing to see a Jew saying the things that he said, since so many Jews have sold out to the theology of Amalek. Scientists are not allowed to question evolution now and it's the same story more and more so with global warming, which the anti-G-d, anti-human atheist establishment is currently working feverishly to get an academic monopoly on.
Oh please. There is no monopoly except that engineered by facts. Anyone who conducts an experiment that disproves any tenet of evolution or calls it into doubt is free to publish such work. The problem is, those experiments don't exist because they've never happened, and no one is able to produce work that calls evolution into question.
There is a monopoly already with evolution, and global warming being caused by man is not a monopoly yet but is quickly becoming a monopoly. They are still building the "tenets" on the global warming hoax around the anti-human aspect of the atheist religion just like they built "tenets" of evolution around the anti-G-d aspect of the atheist religion and anyone who dares interpreting the evidence a different way is anathema (or whatever atheists call it). It would be like submitting a paper proving the Quran is wrong to a bunch of mullahs expecting to get a fair evaluation, no matter how true it is.
This is absurd. You are basically saying that since no one has published articles disproving evolution with experiments that directly address the claims and principles of evolution, that therefore there is a monopoly. That's simply not the case. The reason there are no such publications is because no one has been able to produce experiments which come even close to disproving evolution or its principles.
The entire field of medicine with all its advances operates on the premises of evolution. If evolution were "not true" none of the medicine being developed would ever work.
Actually I'm saying there is a monopoly because the atheists won't accept creationist research like the mullahs wouldn't accept clear Jewish proofs that the Quran is false--not out of lack of substance but out of a preconceived idea that it's wrong because atheism, not science, is the primary motivator for the evolution position. And medicine has nothing to do with theories about all life coming from a common anscestor which was seeded onto earth by aliens. Medical advances come from results you can produce over and over again in a lab.
There is no way to prove creationism! There is nothing to test. It is beyond the grasp of scientific tools or human measurement. Because that is what real creation ex nihilo is. Beyond examination. Anything else is confusion.
What the hell is "creationist research?" Anyone can research anything. In fact, if there were really researchers setting out to disprove evolution WITHIN the scientific method, WITH verifiable scientific experimentation that could actually do so, I'm sure there would be Christian fundamentalist groups and churches lining up all over the country to fund them with millions of dollars for work they would consider so important. These researchers do not exist and their studies do not exist. The "monopoly" is simply your imagination because you cannot call reality a monopoly. The reality is that there is not any research that disproves evolution. There is a host of research that provides vast evidence for it.
Btw, where are all these researchers who are saying their work was denied publication because they "disproved evolution?" They don't exist. If such people existed, there would be magazines and newspapers and all sorts of media lining up to give their work the light of day in front of the public because this is a really hot topic in today's society and a fiercely debated issue. Churches would be promoting these people. All sorts of programs would be speaking about them. But alas they don't exist.
"And medicine has nothing to do with theories about all life coming from a common anscestor which was seeded onto earth by aliens. Medical advances come from results you can produce over and over again in a lab. "
Evolution and the evolutionary relationships among different species or simply molecular evolution - plays a major role in medicine. Your statement is an uninformed one. I'll cite some examples but I'm too tired as of right now and have lost patience. I'll return to the thread tomorrow.
-
Re: "You have provided an example of adaptation, not evolution. Two different things, no?
Chew meeen no ! zeeway Ricky Ricardo ask Lucy "Chew lyke eeet, jes ?" but having it come out as
"Chew lyke eeet, NO ? "
Or do you mean "Jes, no lyke !
Chew talk lyke sum' kyna chili choker, NO?
"Jes ! " "NO " ?
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches? They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!
Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches? They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!
Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.
If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not. Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things. Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics. So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.
if we take a DNA sample of a dinosaur fossil and re-generate it like in Jurassic park, would you believe evolution than? how about some of the ape-man transitions? we will probably be able to do that in 35 years
-
No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian, has ever been observed.
Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".
The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.
The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed, as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.
The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.
(http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/horse_anagenesis.jpg)
The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle"
(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/31/gallery/coelocanth_zoom.jpg)
-
No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian,
has ever been observed.
Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".
The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed,as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.
The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.
The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle".
the fruit flies did become there own species, the 2 had such genetic variation that they were no longer able to reproduce together. there may have been dark moths, but back than they could still mix with light ones.
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches? They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!
Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.
If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not. Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things. Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics. So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.
if we take a DNA sample of a dinosaur fossil and re-generate it like in Jurassic park, would you believe evolution than? how about some of the ape-man transitions? we will probably be able to do that in 35 years
No because live dinosaurs or other animals don't prove evolution anymore than dead ones do. I already believe in evolution that creates variation, but this does not mean all life came from the same anscestor.
what would cause you to believe in evolution?
-
Re: "the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle" "
A colossal riddle all right! ...
One like "Who's the 'schmuck' that put dark grey plaster of paris all over the huge gefilte fish loaf that Bubbe made for Shabbos dinner?"
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches? They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!
Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.
If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not. Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things. Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics. So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.
But evolution doesn't claim that a moth turned into a finch. So you have created a simplistic straw-man that you are beating senseless. But it's not related to the argument at hand.
-
Here's an interesting article.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/
Change and mutations within the same kind of organism is something that creationism accepts--it's what creates variation. You could be a creationist and use those same principles. To connect medical advances like this with the belief that humans ultimately come from amoebas is nonsense, but something that atheists often use in their evangelism.
we have seen new species arise just from natural selection (should i bring the moth up again?)
The moth would be relevant if it turned into something besides a moth.
it originally was a white moth, but it turned bark gray because of pollution. it literally became a new species of moth.
So Dan Ben Noah, you've never heard of Darwin's finches? They were geographically isolated and literally became separate species of bird which cannot mate with one another!
Also, Dan, I believe your specific complaint was addressed in the comments from what I remember.
If they started out as finches and are still finches, it's no blow to creationism whether they can mate or not. Modern taxonomy and the way the Torah classifies different kinds of animals are 2 different things. Bats are classified as a type of bird in the Torah because they are classified using different characteristics. So your finches are only relevant if they came from KahanistLiberal's moths or vice versa.
But evolution doesn't claim that a moth turned into a finch. So you have created a simplistic straw-man that you are beating senseless. But it's not related to the argument at hand.
I FOUND THE TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL ALL THE CREATIONISTS WANT TO SEE
(http://bryanburchfield.com/d/33-1/crocoduck.jpg)
THIS THING WAS IN MY BACK YARD!
now wheres my 10 million dollars for finding it?
-
No genuine evolution whatsoever, not macro, not micro, not gradualist, not punctualist, not neo-Darwinian, nor Lamarckian, has ever been observed.
Likewise, we have never observed light or darkness, we have never observed the moon, we have never seen galaxies or planets, and we have never seen boats sailing in the sea, or automobiles driving by land because well... I'm just going to say so even though we have observed that.
Charles Darwin himself admitted that "not one change of species into another is on record;we cannot prove that a single species has changed".
Gee it makes a lot of sense to quote Darwin when the field has evolved (no pun intended) for 130 years since his death and assembled a host of evidence to support many of his ideas and claims.
Further, to physically OBSERVE a finch becoming a new type of finch would have required first the video camera to be invented and then to record over many years. However, we have the next best thing which are fossils which show processes like these over many years even if we didn't watch them happen physically with our eyes like a movie. Stop playing these silly semantic games.
The genetic experiments on countless generations of Fruit Flies have resulted in no development at all - they still obstinately remain Fruit Flies.
Moronic. They are not trying to change them into something else. When they alter fruitfly genetics, they do so in order to test different genetic models and do experiments with them. They are not trying to create a human from a fruit fly.
The claim that the elimination of the light variety of the Peppered Moth was micro-evolution is now ridiculed, as both the light and dark varieties existed from the beginning.
But you admit that the dark variety became more prevalent while light died out. This IS a form of evolution, even if it's not the "type" or "subset" of evolutionary theory which you personally rail against because of your theological convictions and ignorance.
The vaunted Equus horse series (still displayed in some museums) that was once offered as the best evidence for evolution has now been disowned and quietly discarded:"The display is a deceitful illusion" admitted Professor Charles Deperet.
(http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/horse_anagenesis.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
The discovery of the existence in abundance of the supposedly 60 million year extinct,yet totally unchanged Coelacanth fish, is "a colossal riddle"
(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/31/gallery/coelocanth_zoom.jpg)
Yeah, because pointing out surprising findings or new discoveries is somehow supposed to discredit scientists and the entirety of their work? Unlike you, scientists embrace new riddles and new discoveries with intellectual honesty and they set out to solve the riddles and find explanations. But many things are not riddles and are well established based on the known facts. So how is this coelocanth relevant to the overall question? It isn't. You are basically saying "Na, na, scientists thought this was extinct but really it wasn't! Poopy heads!"
That offers nothing to the discussion.
-
(http://islamicexorcism.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/counting-darood-80-times-right-hand.jpg?w=450&h=550)
!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!
(http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens5453242module59921842photo_1254149408hamsa-5-small.jpg)
-
(http://islamicexorcism.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/counting-darood-80-times-right-hand.jpg?w=450&h=550)
!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!
Point being?
-
(http://islamicexorcism.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/counting-darood-80-times-right-hand.jpg?w=450&h=550)
!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!
your point?
that general shape is a huge evolutionary advantage
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
-
(http://islamicexorcism.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/counting-darood-80-times-right-hand.jpg?w=450&h=550)
!!!FIVE FINGERS!!!
your point?
that general shape is a huge evolutionary advantage
I don't know why you think that. Could you explain what advantage there is in this # of fingers? It seems that more fingers and more arms, and maybe even wings would be an evolutionary advantage which would make humans more fit for survival.
-
I have yet to see any proof of evolution. Everyone who supports it here is simply saying that genetic mutations lead to evolutionary progression. As others against it said, there is no fossil record of this ever happening. Last time I checked there is no reproducable example of one creature turning into anything new.
I do not believe that even over millions of years that a creature as intelligent and built as frail as humans would evolve under the rule 'survival of the fitest'... Also it would seem statistically proproble that humans would not be the only species to develop language, music, theater, math, science, and other intellectual pursuits. If it was just random mutation then something is definitely wrong with the theory.
Im sorry if that is disturbing to our science worshippers, but it is just what I have learned over the years about 'science'.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation.
What? What are you talking about?
Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-on-land-evolution-of-five-fingers.html
I really don't know where you get the idea that more than 5 fingers would be better for humans. Better in what way? More useful? More ergonomic? More efficient? How so? Anatomically, how would extra fingers function more optimally given the current structure we exhibit? This seems to be something you've made up.
It seems that the evolution to the 5-finger creature happened a long long time ago and it never looked back. That would suggest that 5 fingers was highly beneficial.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.
while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.
before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.
those are several factors off the top of my head.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation.
What? What are you talking about?
Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-on-land-evolution-of-five-fingers.html
I really don't know where you get the idea that more than 5 fingers would be better for humans. Better in what way? More useful? More ergonomic? More efficient? How so? Anatomically, how would extra fingers function more optimally given the current structure we exhibit? This seems to be something you've made up.
It seems that the evolution to the 5-finger creature happened a long long time ago and it never looked back. That would suggest that 5 fingers was highly beneficial.
The same question can be turned back to you... Why five fingers? That article did not really answer the question..
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.
while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.
before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.
those are several factors off the top of my head.
Sounds like a fantasy world...
I also doubt the scientists believe we descended from monkeys... I believe that the actual theory is that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.
while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.
before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.
those are several factors off the top of my head.
Sounds like a fantasy world...
I also doubt the scientists believe we descended from monkeys... I believe that the actual theory is that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.
how so?
-
I have not seen any proof of anything other than talking about a theory which has many questions.
Humans are not the product of random mutations. Believing this degrades the human being to the level of a common animal. If you really want to believe you are a animal, you can justify any immoral act. Humans have so much to be grateful for, why would anyone want to try to say we are just a random mutation. That is criminal in my mind. To hate Hashems most brilliant creature that much as to bring him down to the level of a slug or protoplasm? That is just the worst thing that people can do.
I will bow out of this discussion because it pains me to think people actually believe this stuff. You are entitled to continue bickering about how your mother and father were baboons and your sister was an ape, but I know my family is descended from the divine light of creation...
-
I have yet to see any proof of evolution.
It is impossible to see when one refuses to look.
Everyone who supports it here is simply saying that genetic mutations lead to evolutionary progression. As others against it said, there is no fossil record of this ever happening.
Fossils definitely show that over centuries and centuries old species died out and new ones emerged!
Last time I checked there is no reproducable example of one creature turning into anything new.
How would that be reproduced, in your opinion? It happened naturally. One can mimick this in a lab but that would require genetically altering the species and that has certainly been done many times. But the problem is that that does not really "reproduce" what happened because there were no geneticists millions of years ago altering fish/amphibians genetically to make survival on land possible. It happened of its own accord, according to God's plan.
I do not believe that even over millions of years that a creature as intelligent and built as frail as humans would evolve under the rule 'survival of the fitest'...
Right, you don't believe it, but that belief has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Also why do you refer to humans as frail?
Also it would seem statistically proproble that humans would not be the only species to develop language, music, theater, math, science, and other intellectual pursuits. If it was just random mutation then something is definitely wrong with the theory.
Well I don't believe it's random in the sense that I do think there is a deeper spiritual reason behind why humans were the only ones to develop these traits. However, that being said, for what reason should I not believe this type of trait is a "fluke" unique to humans. (ie, why should other animals have developed this? The very fact of its uncommonness suggests that it would not and could not be developed except under very special conditions that humans (and their ancestors) encountered unique to the other animals).
Im sorry if that is disturbing to our science worshippers,
::) Who would those be?
If you refer to me with this disgusting and slanderous term, I'm really not disturbed by your beliefs and convictions, but just so long as you don't falsify the Torah and try to claim that my beliefs and knowledge and understanding of evolution is somehow forbidden or cannot be reconciled with Torah belief. There are many people like me who are not in denial, and it would be quite useful for them to know that they don't have to discard religion because of being open to scientific truth.
but it is just what I have learned over the years about 'science'.
Mazel tov, I guess.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation.
What? What are you talking about?
Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-on-land-evolution-of-five-fingers.html
I really don't know where you get the idea that more than 5 fingers would be better for humans. Better in what way? More useful? More ergonomic? More efficient? How so? Anatomically, how would extra fingers function more optimally given the current structure we exhibit? This seems to be something you've made up.
It seems that the evolution to the 5-finger creature happened a long long time ago and it never looked back. That would suggest that 5 fingers was highly beneficial.
The same question can be turned back to you... Why five fingers? That article did not really answer the question..
I don't understand your question. Why does that have to be answered? Science is concerned with how, not "why." If you want "why" in the metaphysical sense, ask God. (ie, that's a spiritual matter and a bigger picture of why God created us the way He did).
If you are asking HOW did the 5-finger structure become the common and dominant form of all animals, sometimes you are not able to go back in a time machine and determine exactly why a certain structure became more prominent over others (ie 5 fingers became ubiquitous over 8-finger creatures or other variations). (or the question of why 8 finger ones died out or didn't last). One can only speculate on that unless we find some evidence which suggests why it happened. If there was evidence that relates to this question, people would have more grounds to speculate about it with hypotheses (the article offers only very vague suggestions because it is difficult to determine relevant evidence to address that question - fine, no one claimed that "science" knows everything). I can't understand why you think that question needs to be answered or else there was never evolution.
-
What is the reason that we only have five fingers when according to genetic mutations there should be more variation. Do you think it would be better if we had more fingers? I do... How about some more arms too? Imagine how much more productive a man could be with more arms... Yet we have two arms, and five fingers on a hand.
all vertebrate land animals had a very similar tetrapodic skeletal structure for a while now, even on a geological time scale.
while only the most well adapt organisms survive, mutations are totally random. just because something is an advantage doesn't mean we are going to get it.
before humans started walking upright, we were monkeys in a thick jungle, wings are generally a disadvantage in that environment, especially for something as big as an ape.
those are several factors off the top of my head.
Sounds like a fantasy world...
I also doubt the scientists believe we descended from monkeys... I believe that the actual theory is that both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor.
Yes, that's true.
-
I have not seen any proof of anything other than talking about a theory which has many questions.
Humans are not the product of random mutations. Believing this degrades the human being to the level of a common animal. If you really want to believe you are a animal, you can justify any immoral act. Humans have so much to be grateful for, why would anyone want to try to say we are just a random mutation. That is criminal in my mind. To hate Hashems most brilliant creature that much as to bring him down to the level of a slug or protoplasm? That is just the worst thing that people can do.
I will bow out of this discussion because it pains me to think people actually believe this stuff. You are entitled to continue bickering about how your mother and father were baboons and your sister was an ape, but I know my family is descended from the divine light of creation...
Here we go again with the accusations.
What's really "criminal" is the ignorance passed off as gospel!
"Humans are not the product of random mutations. Believing this degrades the human being to the level of a common animal."
You are making the word "random" into a value judgment. Why should it be? It's random in the physical sense, as to what we can possibly determine with the physical senses, but in reality we know intuitively and from revelation that there was a hidden Director behind those variations. But science cannot address that question and does not bother with it. However, this is the conviction of any believing scientist. So why do you assume that this attitude is excluded by accepting that evolution occurred?
Humans have so much to be grateful for,
You mean like our inefficient, limited, impractical, and frail 5-finger hand?
Your notions, not mine!
why would anyone want to try to say we are just a random mutation.
G-d gave man the higher cognitive ability - that's a spiritual observation. It is only "random mutation" that produced the human being in the physical sense. In the BIGGER PICTURE, a Jew must know that behind it all there was a master plan and that what APPEARS RANDOM TO US, indeed was not really random from the metaphysical, ie G-d's perspective.
To hate Hashems most brilliant creature that much as to bring him down to the level of a slug or protoplasm?
What exactly do you have against slugs and protoplasm? What did they ever do to you? G-d designed them also, did He not? So why do you bash them as if they are so undesirable? We must know our roots as human beings, and our roots are the earth, the soil, the animal kingdom. We are simply the next step on the ladder but don't forget where you came from -maintain the proper humility - this is the message behind the creation story itself!
You are entitled to continue bickering about how your mother and father were baboons and your sister was an ape,
Yes because that is what evolution claims. My sister is an ape.
but I know my family is descended from the divine light of creation...
So you're claiming that the apes are not descended from the divine light of creation? You're denying that G-d created the apes? What astounding kefirah in the name of piety!
-
Humans are not the product of random mutations.
random mutations are what allow evolution to happen, but the real driving force behind it is natural selection, aka survival of the fittest. which is not random.
Believing this degrades the human being to the level of a common animal.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
yep, we qualify, we are separated from the rest of kingdom Animalia by other means.
on the other hand, heres definition 2: any such living thing other than a human being.
has to do with the fact that god was involved in our evolution. the thing that caused us to walk upright is the formation of the hymilayas, a mountain range thousands of miles away from africa, disrupted the wind current and killed the jungle, the newly formed grasslands made us walk upright. i belive god was involved in the geological events that formed the hymilayas.
If you really want to believe you are a animal, you can justify any immoral act.
you actually can't, for us to keep out civilization alive, the very thing that allows us to live as long as we do, we need civilized rules. (going a little into philosophy here)
To hate Hashems most brilliant creature that much as to bring him down to the level of a slug or protoplasm? That is just the worst thing that people can do.
look at the other stuff i said
-
There's no way that humans are just another animal because male humans are mammals but don't have a penis bone, but almost every other male mammal does have a penis bone.
This is proof that evolution is a fraud! :teach:
-
So in other words what you just said was that if some big greasy schwartze pulls out a pistol and shoots it in your face that's all part of Ha'Shem's beautiful Divine plan for the world but now you've got a hole in your face.
IS THAT IS? HUH? IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID! THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID!
:'(
-
Without five fingers Ha'Shem's most Divine Creation would not be able to "flip the bird" a/k/a "give 'em the middle finger" while driving in traffic.
::)
-
Re: "it literally became a new species of moth. "
This species of moth became Mothman of West Virginia.
They made a movie about it with Richard Gere where Mothman was out to kill Richard Gere, because Gere was a naturally selected mutation who evolved into Gerbilman.
-
There were never any dinosaurs!
Satan invented the bones and put them all over the place to dupe mankind and trick him into thinking that evolution and the Pleistocene Era and stuff like that actually happened.
Don't be deceived!
There never were any dinosaurs or fossils or anything like them at all!
Satan put them there to throw a monkey wrench in G-d's Perfect Plan so man would be condemned to Hell for Eternity!
Earth is only a little over 5,000 years old and every creature that ever existed is alive today exactly as it was on the day it was created in the Garden.
And there are no extinct species!
If there were, the Dodo bird would be mentioned in the Bible.
But it's not, is it?
-
When G-d created plants and specifically trees on Earth, do you think they had growth rings inside them, which typically appear after each year long season [which as they accumulate provide sturdiness for the tree]? Or were trees merely solid inside w/o any rings [which would also enable a tree to be sturdy]? Or were they all started as seedlings? Someone asked me this and I found it an intriguing question, obviously I don't have a definitive answer.
How about soil? Soil is incredibly full of lifeforms, and is a complex eco-system of its own. While I do not write off evolution as fact or farce, to me it seems incredibly perplexing to think soil's eco-system of many unique strains bacteria and fungus, as well as other micro-organisms randomly propagated itself [and the way plants, specifically their root systems, are seemingly designed (or at least in a way they mechanically fit together like missing pieces of a puzzle) to live in a symbiotic relationship]. Mycorrhizal fungi grow very invasive into a plants roots where both organisms benefit from cohabitation, to me that is fascinating [I work in hydroponics].
As I mentioned before, I don't write off evolution as fact or farce, it does not bear strongly on my daily life... a smart rabbi once told me, "when it appears Torah and science disagree, the fault lies with us in our limited understanding and not the Torah or science"; I think that is a great outlook to maintain.
-
Evolution and Eugenics are both leftist [progressive] ideas they both lead to Nazism and communism
-
The sole reason that billions of years are invoked is because that is how long that evolution is claimed to require to even begin to start operating.
Of course, there is no evidence for billions of years.
All the evidence supports a much more recent creation, in accordance with the Torah.
-
Re: "it literally became a new species of moth. "
This species of moth became Mothman of West Virginia.
They made a movie about it with Richard Gere where Mothman was out to kill Richard Gere, because Gere was a naturally selected mutation who evolved into Gerbilman.
I think you are thinking of Arthur from The Tick:
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/media/937.jpg)
-
Coelacanth fish can be declared as muslamic, the moving fossils.
-
So in other words what you just said was that if some big greasy schwartze pulls out a pistol and shoots it in your face that's all part of Ha'Shem's beautiful Divine plan for the world but now you've got a hole in your face.
IS THAT IS? HUH? IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID! THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID!
:'(
I don't believe anyone just said that.
A scvartze has free will like any person.
How he evolves is not his "choice," nor was it a conscious process for any of the animals involved.
-
There were never any dinosaurs!
Satan invented the bones and put them all over the place to dupe mankind and trick him into thinking that evolution and the Pleistocene Era and stuff like that actually happened.
Don't be deceived!
There never were any dinosaurs or fossils or anything like them at all!
Satan put them there to throw a monkey wrench in G-d's Perfect Plan so man would be condemned to Hell for Eternity!
Earth is only a little over 5,000 years old and every creature that ever existed is alive today exactly as it was on the day it was created in the Garden.
And there are no extinct species!
If there were, the Dodo bird would be mentioned in the Bible.
But it's not, is it?
As ridiculous as this caricature is, the sad thing is that there are actually people who think this way.
-
Evolution and Eugenics are both leftist [progressive] ideas they both lead to Nazism and communism
Are you saying that humans evolved into nazis? Yes, that is partially true. Some of the species indeed "evolved" into nazis, although they did not change into a separate species. The ability to have rational thought processes and complex cognition enables humans to come up with all sorts of ideas, nazism included. But it has also enabled humans to develop many very good ideas, compassion, and other beneficial and morally sound motives.
So when the first amphibians came about from fish who developed the ability to spend time on dry land, was that a communist conspiracy?
-
The sole reason that billions of years are invoked is because that is how long that evolution is claimed to require to even begin to start operating.
The reason that is "invoked" is because various methods of dating the universe show it to be that old!
Why do you continue to lie in people's faces on this forum? Take your sheker elsewhere.
Of course, there is no evidence for billions of years.
Just like there is no evidence that there is a sun, a moon, and that the world is spherical. Or that there was a moon landing, right?
Do believe that the world is flat? Please clarify that for the readers here.
Do you believe the world is flat?
Because you DO believe that the universe is geocentric, as you've made clear here many times before, and so obviously you don't consider ANYTHING evidence except what you perceive is written in a holy book (even though it's not written there).
All the evidence supports a much more recent creation, in accordance with the Torah.
What evidence would that be? lol.
Saying "I know this because I interpret it from Torah and hold it as a religious conviction" does not constitute evidence.
-
There are no two more dubious theories than evolution and global warming!
Even my stepfather, who is a known scientist and an atheist, laughs at the theory of evolution (not talking about the theory of anthropogenic global warming).
-
What evidence would that be? lol.
The rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the dearth of human records and artifacts older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the abiogenic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (tree-ring dating), pleochroic haloes etc etc etc
Doesn't the Jewish date 5771 have any meaning for you?!
R.Kahane would be very disappointed with you.
"The universe will exist 6000 years" (Sanhedrin 97)
-
What evidence would that be? lol.
The rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the dearth of human records and artifacts older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the abiogenic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (tree-ring dating), pleochroic haloes etc etc etc
Doesn't the Jewish date 5771 have any meaning for you?!
R.Kahane would be very disappointed with you.
"The universe will exist 6000 years" (Sanhedrin 97)
I'd like to think Rabbi Kahane would be proud of me and would be embarrassed by a non-thinking imbecile like you who insists that the sun revolves around the earth!
That passage in Sanhedrin is NOT dating the age of the universe! Such blatant ignorance...
-
A Chabad rabbi taught me in Torah study that Ha'Shem created the world as it says in Genesis, and created during those same six days some parts of the earth with fossil bones and areas which look like they are from different geological eras to allow fools the free will to actually believe in an "old Earth" and "evolution".
I was taught that if Ha'Shem is capable of creating everything, then He's certainly able to create bones which carbon dating reads as 50 million years old, when in fact they are 5000 years old.
So case closed.
-
a non-thinking imbecile like you who insists that the sun revolves around the earth!
As with a 6000 year old universe, all the solid scientific evidence actually fully supports a Sun going round the Earth!
Would you dare also call the Maharal, the Ma’aseh Tuviyah, the Mateh Dan, R.Yonoson Eibeshutz, the Ba’al HaTanya, R.Nachman of Breslov, the Sefer Habris, the Lubavitcher Rebbe etc "imbeciles" for holding like the Tenach that that the Sun goes round the Earth?!
-
a non-thinking imbecile like you who insists that the sun revolves around the earth!
As with a 6000 year old universe, all the solid scientific evidence actually fully supports a Sun going round the Earth!
Would you dare also call the Maharal, the Ma’aseh Tuviyah, the Mateh Dan, R.Yonoson Eibeshutz, the Ba’al HaTanya, R.Nachman of Breslov, the Sefer Habris, the Lubavitcher Rebbe etc "imbeciles" for holding like the Tenach that that the Sun goes round the Earth?!
Where does it say in Torah that the Sun revolves around the earth? I have never heard that one...
Actually I just found some discussion of this topic:
http://www.meaningfullife.com/spiritual/nature/Revolution_of_the_Planets.php
-
a non-thinking imbecile like you who insists that the sun revolves around the earth!
As with a 6000 year old universe, all the solid scientific evidence actually fully supports a Sun going round the Earth!
LOL !
:::D
Would you dare also call the Maharal, the Ma’aseh Tuviyah, the Mateh Dan, R.Yonoson Eibeshutz, the Ba’al HaTanya, R.Nachman of Breslov, the Sefer Habris, the Lubavitcher Rebbe etc "imbeciles" for holding like the Tenach that that the Sun goes round the Earth?!
No I wouldn't, but if they lived today when the science is already well known and clearly established, and they still insisted on this, I would think it is an imbecilic view! If they are well versed in the science, they should know better. Even if they're not, it's no excuse, however, in today's age where this is so well known.
I wouldn't call the Lubavitcher rebbe any names like I would call you. However, he had some very mistaken views and so did his chassidim!
-
A Chabad rabbi taught me in Torah study that Ha'Shem created the world as it says in Genesis, and created during those same six days some parts of the earth with fossil bones and areas which look like they are from different geological eras to allow fools the free will to actually believe in an "old Earth" and "evolution".
I was taught that if Ha'Shem is capable of creating everything, then He's certainly able to create bones which carbon dating reads as 50 million years old, when in fact they are 5000 years old.
So case closed.
Case closed?
Oh, I get it, if Jews don't adhere to the most outlandish view, then it's not really authentic?
Ever stop and consider that maybe this chabad rabbi was incorrect?
My rabbi certainly does not agree with him and thinks that view is nonsense.
For those who make the claim of "fake dinosaur bones" - of course God is CAPABLE of that, because God is capable of anything, but the more relevant question is WHY would God do that, and why is it rational or logical for me to think that He did?
-
Re: "I wouldn't call the Lubavitcher rebbe any names like I would call you. However, he had some very mistaken views and so did his chassidim! "
Rabbi Schneerson was a highly educated individual, fully versed in all the modern sciences, and successfully defended his geocentric Torah view of the Earth's relations to the Universe to his Physics Professor in front of his entire class at the Sorbonne in Paris!
When his Professor challenged young Schneerson to defend his "antiquated" and "backwards" view, Schneerson calmly replied that each celestial body exists in a Universe with no known boundaries, in which there is no "stationary starting point" for measuring the movements of any one celestial body in relation to any of the others.
Furthermore, he continued, the Solar System, along with the infinite Universe, exists in a state of constant flux and motion, and as a result no one can declare any one place in it to be "home base".
Neither can anyone prove the permanent location of Earth within the vastness of a Universe in constant motion.
Therefore, Schneerson concluded, is it not a fact that under such conditions, to say that the Sun is the center of our planetary orbits is nor more provable than to say that the Earth is the center of the known Universe? --
Is this not so according to the Laws of Physics?
Astonished, the Sorbonne Professor conceded to the entire class that Rabbi Schneerson's position was unassailable and equally as valid as the more commonly accepted theory.
This account is true.
-
Re: "of course G-d is CAPABLE of that, because G-d is capable of anything "
Whaaaaaa!
This is the exact position of those who claim that G-d DID become a flesh and blood man and demanded that all worship and acknowledge the incarnation!
Now you've really stepped in it! :'(
-
Re: "Ever stop and consider that maybe this chabad rabbi was incorrect? "
Well ... I almost started to consider the possibility of that being the case, but then I remembered that it is the greatest violation of Torah Law and an unforgivable sin to talk bad about an esteemed scholar of Torah!
How dare you!
No one has the right to question anything ... ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!! ... that a Torah scholars says ... or ... does.
-
The Rebbe is absolutely right that according to Relativity, to say that the Sun is going round the Earth, is a perfectly fully scientifically valid model of the universe:
"If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw out of physical and mathematical necessity" (Sir Fred Hoyle).
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." (Albert Einstein)
"Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made". (Bertrand Russell)
-
Re: "Ever stop and consider that maybe this chabad rabbi was incorrect? "
Well ... I almost started to consider the possibility of that being the case, but then I remembered that it is the greatest violation of Torah Law and an unforgivable sin to talk bad about an esteemed scholar of Torah!
How dare you!
No one has the right to question anything ... ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!! ... that a Torah scholars says ... or ... does.
Massuh,
Sometimes you are just totally full of it... You are misrepresenting the Torah by stating these kinds of things. It is wrong to denigrate and belittle a Torah scholar, but it is not an unforgivable sin as you say... Where did you learn some of these wild ideas? And I know it was not from Chabad...
-
Re: "Where did you learn some of these wild ideas? And I know it was not from Chabad... "
Whaaaaaaaaa!
What do you mean? :o
-
Thanks, wonga66!
Finally the world knows the Ultimate Truth!
Einstein, the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century, knew it when he declared "A body is only at complete rest when it is falling!"
Dinosaurs were walking the Earth not all too long ago.
I remember pulling my automobile up to the Sinclair Oil service station and saw one with my very own eyes!
I'm not making this up!
And don't nobody here try and tell me it was just the LSD because that had nothing to do with it!
-
Re: "of course G-d is CAPABLE of that, because G-d is capable of anything "
Whaaaaaa!
This is the exact position of those who claim that G-d DID become a flesh and blood man and demanded that all worship and acknowledge the incarnation!
Now you've really stepped in it! :'(
When you cut off the rest of my sentence, you hide its context, and you have distorted what I said.
-
Thanks, wonga66!
Finally the world knows the Ultimate Truth!
Einstein, the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century, knew it when he declared "A body is only at complete rest when it is falling!"
Dinosaurs were walking the Earth not all too long ago.
I remember pulling my automobile up to the Sinclair Oil service station and saw one with my very own eyes!
I'm not making this up!
And don't nobody here try and tell me it was just the LSD because that had nothing to do with it!
Ah, Purple Microdot...
-
Re: "I wouldn't call the Lubavitcher rebbe any names like I would call you. However, he had some very mistaken views and so did his chassidim! "
Rabbi Schneerson was a highly educated individual, fully versed in all the modern sciences, and successfully defended his geocentric Torah view of the Earth's relations to the Universe to his Physics Professor in front of his entire class at the Sorbonne in Paris!
Source please.
Really, where did you get this from?
Secondly, why does it matter that he presented a mistaken view in front of what you imply were important people? Presenting it does not make it correct.
If a professor conceded to his argument then it is quite possible that a moron became a professor. That does not make his argument true.
-
Thanks, wonga66!
Finally the world knows the Ultimate Truth!
Einstein, the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century, knew it when he declared "A body is only at complete rest when it is falling!"
Dinosaurs were walking the Earth not all too long ago.
I remember pulling my automobile up to the Sinclair Oil service station and saw one with my very own eyes!
I'm not making this up!
And don't nobody here try and tell me it was just the LSD because that had nothing to do with it!
Massuh, Are you sure you were not visiting the Sinclair Dino Land Pavilion at the New York Worlds Fair back in 65
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodplace/4298480228/
-
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/73253/jewish/The-Wager.htm
The Wager
In the summer of 1975, an encounter took place between Rabbi F.R., a Lubavitcher chassid, and Mr. A.P., a "modernized" American Jew. Rabbi R. was seeking to influence Mr. P. toward a greater commitment to Torah observance, which the latter dismissed as "archaic" and dismally outdated. In the course of the conversation, Mr. P. said, "Are you telling me that every law and practice mentioned in the Torah, written thousands of years ago, must be accepted at face value today?" "Certainly,” replied Rabbi R. "The Torah is eternal, and is equally pertinent to every day and age." "The Torah states that the sun revolves around the earth," countered Mr. P. "Do you believe that as well?" "Yes, I do," replied Rabbi R. "Well, you might believe that," said Mr. P., "but no rational, self-respecting inhabitant of the 20th century does. I’m sure your rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, doesn’t!" "I’m sure he does," said the rabbi. "I’m willing to wager anything that he does not," said Mr. P. "In fact, I’ll say this: If the Rebbe states that he believes that the sun revolves around the earth, I will become a Torah-observant Jew and convince everyone I know to do the same!" "Would you put that in writing?" challenged Rabbi R. "No problem," said Mr. P.
Soon after, Rabbi R. received the following letter:
Dear Rabbi R____
As per our conversation of today... I did say to you, and am submitting the same in writing by means of this letter, that if the Rebbe would make a public statement to the effect that... since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it is therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, that I will:
(a) personally observe the laws of taharat hamishpachah, tefillin and Shabbat; and
(b) influence my friends and colleagues to do the same.
It is, however, more than obvious to me that the Rebbe will not, in any way, make such a ridiculous statement, because
(a) he does not wish to be labeled as a fool,
(b) he himself is not as foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers.
I predict, with no hesitation, that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Rebbe...
I must tell you that I feel a deep personal hurt when people such as you make such asinine, ridiculous statements and then hide your abysmal ignorance behind the facade of "Torah." Don’t you realize you can still be believers and not live 500 years behind the times?
Mr. P. received not one but two separate letters in reply from the Rebbe, plus a third, cover letter, which read as follows:
Greetings and blessings!
Your letter, addressed to Rabbi F____ R____, reached me ... In view of its content, I naturally take this first opportunity of replying to it.
Not knowing whether you are more interested in the practical implication, or/and in the scientific aspect, I am writing two separate replies, enclosed herewith, which you can read in the order you prefer.
With esteem and blessing,
M. Schneerson
P.S. It is surely unnecessary to add-though I am adding it for the record-that I take for granted that you will keep your commitments with regard to the practical aspects of your letter.
One letter read:
... In reply to your question relating to the matter of the motion of the sun and the earth, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun,
It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science.
In view of the above, I have no objection, of course, if you wish to make this view known to whomever you choose...
The other letter read:
... This is in reply to your inquiry on the question of the rotation of the sun and the earth in relation to each other, namely, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, and which view is to be accepted, etc.
I presume you have in mind the scientific view, i.e., what science has to say on this question, and I will address myself to this aspect.
It is well known that this was a controversial issue in ancient and medieval science. However, since about half a century ago, with the introduction of the theory of relativity, the latter has been universally accepted as the basis of modern science...
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Thus, if there are phenomena that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of one of these views, such difficulties have their counterpart also if the opposite view is accepted.
Secondly, the scientific conclusion that both views have equal validity is the result not of any inadequacy of available scientific data, or of technological development (measuring instruments, etc.), in which case it could be expected that further scientific or technological advancement might clear up the matter eventually and decide in favor of one or the other view. On the contrary, the conclusion of contemporary science is that regardless of any future scientific advancement, the question as to which is our planetary center, the sun or the earth, must forever remain unresolved, since both view(s) will always have the same scientific validity, as stated.
Thirdly, it follows that anyone declaring that a person who chooses to accept one of these systems in preference to the other is a fool, while one who accepts the other is a wise man-such a judgment shows that the person making it is ignorant of the conclusions of modern science, or that he has not advanced beyond the science of Ptolemy and Copernicus...
A further point might be added, though perhaps not pertinent to our discussion. It is that every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter: (a) that A revolves around B, (b) that B revolves around A, (c) that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science; it would be one’s personal choice and belief.
What has been said above is-to repeat-the deduction of the theory of relativity, as it is expounded in various scientific texts, and it can be checked with any scientist who is thoroughly familiar with the said theory. Of course, on the elementary and high-school level, science in general, and the so-called Solar System in particular, is taught from relatively simple textbooks, and the change in the scientific attitude towards the subject under discussion is not emphasized. But, as stated, it would be quite simple to verify it with any scientist who knows this particular field...
-
Re: "Are you sure you were not visiting the Sinclair Dino Land Pavilion at the New York Worlds Fair back in 65
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodplace/4298480228/ "
OMG! OMG! OMG!!!
IT'S THEM!
-
Re: "Ever stop and consider that maybe this chabad rabbi was incorrect? "
Well ... I almost started to consider the possibility of that being the case, but then I remembered that it is the greatest violation of Torah Law and an unforgivable sin to talk bad about an esteemed scholar of Torah!
How dare you!
Wrong. The entire Talmud is full of Torah scholars saying views opposite to each other and insisting the other is wrong.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. You can't INSULT a Torah scholar. But suggesting he made a mistake or even moreso that he has an incorrect opinion or mistaken view is certainly permitted. Whoever told you that you have to worship Torah scholars was teaching you avoda zara instead of Judaism.
No one has the right to question anything ... ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!! ... that a Torah scholars says ... or ... does.
Nice straw-man. Is there a reason you are trying to ridicule Judaism with your caricatures? If you really believe this, you are mistaken. However, I don't believe that you really believe this. I think you are being deceptive in order to paint Judaism and its followers negatively.
-
Re: "Ever stop and consider that maybe this chabad rabbi was incorrect? "
Well ... I almost started to consider the possibility of that being the case, but then I remembered that it is the greatest violation of Torah Law and an unforgivable sin to talk bad about an esteemed scholar of Torah!
How dare you!
No one has the right to question anything ... ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!! ... that a Torah scholars says ... or ... does.
Massuh,
Sometimes you are just totally full of it... You are misrepresenting the Torah by stating these kinds of things. It is wrong to denigrate and belittle a Torah scholar, but it is not an unforgivable sin as you say...
Muman, I didn't denigrate or belittle a Torah scholar.
And what Massuh said is actually even more insane because he is insisting that it's an unforgivable sin to DISAGREE with a Torah scholar. This is just plain deception and falsehood.
I urge the members here to cease falsification of the Torah - for to falsify the Torah really is a sin!
-
Re: "When you cut off the rest of my sentence, you hide its context, and you have distorted what I said. "
Well, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" ! ;D
-
Re: "to falsify the Torah really is a sin! "
Well, at least you're willing to confess!
-
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/73253/jewish/The-Wager.htm
The Wager
In the summer of 1975, an encounter took place between Rabbi F.R., a Lubavitcher chassid, and Mr. A.P., a "modernized" American Jew. Rabbi R. was seeking to influence Mr. P. toward a greater commitment to Torah observance, which the latter dismissed as "archaic" and dismally outdated. In the course of the conversation, Mr. P. said, "Are you telling me that every law and practice mentioned in the Torah, written thousands of years ago, must be accepted at face value today?" "Certainly,” replied Rabbi R. "The Torah is eternal, and is equally pertinent to every day and age." "The Torah states that the sun revolves around the earth," countered Mr. P. "Do you believe that as well?" "Yes, I do," replied Rabbi R. "Well, you might believe that," said Mr. P., "but no rational, self-respecting inhabitant of the 20th century does. I’m sure your rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, doesn’t!" "I’m sure he does," said the rabbi. "I’m willing to wager anything that he does not," said Mr. P. "In fact, I’ll say this: If the Rebbe states that he believes that the sun revolves around the earth, I will become a Torah-observant Jew and convince everyone I know to do the same!" "Would you put that in writing?" challenged Rabbi R. "No problem," said Mr. P.
Soon after, Rabbi R. received the following letter:
Dear Rabbi R____
As per our conversation of today... I did say to you, and am submitting the same in writing by means of this letter, that if the Rebbe would make a public statement to the effect that... since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it is therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, that I will:
(a) personally observe the laws of taharat hamishpachah, tefillin and Shabbat; and
(b) influence my friends and colleagues to do the same.
It is, however, more than obvious to me that the Rebbe will not, in any way, make such a ridiculous statement, because
(a) he does not wish to be labeled as a fool,
(b) he himself is not as foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers.
I predict, with no hesitation, that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Rebbe...
I must tell you that I feel a deep personal hurt when people such as you make such asinine, ridiculous statements and then hide your abysmal ignorance behind the facade of "Torah." Don’t you realize you can still be believers and not live 500 years behind the times?
Mr. P. received not one but two separate letters in reply from the Rebbe, plus a third, cover letter, which read as follows:
Greetings and blessings!
Your letter, addressed to Rabbi F____ R____, reached me ... In view of its content, I naturally take this first opportunity of replying to it.
Not knowing whether you are more interested in the practical implication, or/and in the scientific aspect, I am writing two separate replies, enclosed herewith, which you can read in the order you prefer.
With esteem and blessing,
M. Schneerson
P.S. It is surely unnecessary to add-though I am adding it for the record-that I take for granted that you will keep your commitments with regard to the practical aspects of your letter.
One letter read:
... In reply to your question relating to the matter of the motion of the sun and the earth, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun,
It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science.
In view of the above, I have no objection, of course, if you wish to make this view known to whomever you choose...
The other letter read:
... This is in reply to your inquiry on the question of the rotation of the sun and the earth in relation to each other, namely, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, and which view is to be accepted, etc.
I presume you have in mind the scientific view, i.e., what science has to say on this question, and I will address myself to this aspect.
It is well known that this was a controversial issue in ancient and medieval science. However, since about half a century ago, with the introduction of the theory of relativity, the latter has been universally accepted as the basis of modern science...
One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Thus, if there are phenomena that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of one of these views, such difficulties have their counterpart also if the opposite view is accepted.
Secondly, the scientific conclusion that both views have equal validity is the result not of any inadequacy of available scientific data, or of technological development (measuring instruments, etc.), in which case it could be expected that further scientific or technological advancement might clear up the matter eventually and decide in favor of one or the other view. On the contrary, the conclusion of contemporary science is that regardless of any future scientific advancement, the question as to which is our planetary center, the sun or the earth, must forever remain unresolved, since both view(s) will always have the same scientific validity, as stated.
Thirdly, it follows that anyone declaring that a person who chooses to accept one of these systems in preference to the other is a fool, while one who accepts the other is a wise man-such a judgment shows that the person making it is ignorant of the conclusions of modern science, or that he has not advanced beyond the science of Ptolemy and Copernicus...
A further point might be added, though perhaps not pertinent to our discussion. It is that every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter: (a) that A revolves around B, (b) that B revolves around A, (c) that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science; it would be one’s personal choice and belief.
What has been said above is-to repeat-the deduction of the theory of relativity, as it is expounded in various scientific texts, and it can be checked with any scientist who is thoroughly familiar with the said theory. Of course, on the elementary and high-school level, science in general, and the so-called Solar System in particular, is taught from relatively simple textbooks, and the change in the scientific attitude towards the subject under discussion is not emphasized. But, as stated, it would be quite simple to verify it with any scientist who knows this particular field...
Basically The Lubavitcher Rebbe, in another letter I've seen written to a scientist, argues against the concept of induction. This is his real anti-science position and the basic source for his views and the views Lubavitchers adopt about the "limitations" of science. However, induction is the best way at approximating reality and arriving at the truth.
I'll give you a basic example. A volume graph over 4 varying gas pressures. The x axis is the increasing pressure, and the Y axis is increasing volume. There will be four data points, and since gas pressure is inversely related to the volume of the gas, as the pressure increases, the volume will decrease. So the 4 data points will point diagonally downward from left to right. You connect those lines forming a "curve" - a "best-fit" line. Then you analyze that best-fit line you've drawn, to create a model. Now with this model, you can predict for a given pressure, what volume the gas will be. Rabbi Schneerson is basically saying that this line is not 100% precise. Of course it's not. That's why scientific analyses require more than 4 data points, and the best-fit lines such as this incorporate the error in the data for example with the R value. With more data points, you get a better R value, less error, and more accurate model to predict from a given pressure, what the volume will be, by plugging the value into the equation for your line. Of course, there are always outliers and there are other factors involved (Real gas theory vs. Ideal gas) yet this is an approximation with the error accounted for. That is really the applicability of the above letter. So not only does the letter not really refute the use of mathematical models to approximate data points, there is a whole lot of science that has nothing to do with drawing best-fit lines!
In the letter you cite, I think it speaks for itself. He believed that the sun revolves around the earth. He was wrong about that. Sorry.
-
Re: "to falsify the Torah really is a sin! "
Well, at least you're willing to confess!
Why don't you point to something I falsified? Quote me.
I am not distorting and falsifying anything here. From what I can see, you are the only one doing that in this thread. Is this some kind of school-kid peewee herman defense "I know you are but what am I" because I called you out on what you were doing? So you project your own deception onto me?
-
Re: "When you cut off the rest of my sentence, you hide its context, and you have distorted what I said. "
Well, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" !
So... you're saying you're a clown?
-
People here should realize how many disagreements there are among rabbis and how many rabbis there are that disagree with Chabadniks all the time about a host of subjects. If you prop up any man as speaking the gospel or being infallible, spiritually you are treading thin ice, and you are in serious danger of worshiping a man. I would advise readers strongly against this.
-
People here should realize how many disagreements there are among rabbis and how many rabbis there are that disagree with Chabadniks all the time about a host of subjects. If you prop up any man as speaking the gospel or being infallible, spiritually you are treading thin ice, and you are in serious danger of worshiping a man. I would readers advise strongly against this.
There are other Rabbis who have made such statements. Rather that brush them off and discount them, it would be wise to try to understand what they are saying.
About what the Chabad Rebbe said:
I would be willing to meet him halfway if the statement was rephrased... I do believe that the earth 'revolves' around the sun... But simultaneously I believe that the Earth is the CENTER of the Universe. From our perspective, which is the perspective which Hashem gave us, the Earth is the sole reason for creation. It is the CENTER of the Universe so to speak. But when we look at the solar system and can measure the time it takes the satellites to orbit, we can see that the earth is revolving around the sun. I can hold these two concepts in my mind at the same time and it makes sense. The human mind is limited and we often find it difficult to conceive of concepts which seem contradictory.
-
People here should realize how many disagreements there are among rabbis and how many rabbis there are that disagree with Chabadniks all the time about a host of subjects. If you prop up any man as speaking the gospel or being infallible, spiritually you are treading thin ice, and you are in serious danger of worshiping a man. I would readers advise strongly against this.
There are other Rabbis who have made such statements. Rather that brush them off and discount them, it would be wise to try to understand what they are saying.
WOW! Are you really contradicting what I just said? You deny that there are many rabbis who disagree with Chabadniks on a host of issues? Can you dispute that with facts? NO. It's a fact.
How about the fact that anyone who props up any man as infallible is in grave danger and in danger of falling into worship of a man (among other problems)? FACT.
As to the "statements" - I certainly understand what is being said. And I disagree. Simple as that. There are some rabbis who don't understand science. As a result, they sometimes make statements about science that are not correct. There are even some rabbis who ARE familiar with science, yet nonetheless make grievous mistakes in explanation of science or in polemic against it. There's nothing wrong with the fact that rabbis are not perfect and can make mistakes, especially in fields other than Torah knowledge!
About what the Chabad Rebbe said:
I would be willing to meet him halfway if the statement was rephrased... I do believe that the earth 'revolves' around the sun... But simultaneously I believe that the Earth is the CENTER of the Universe. From our perspective, which is the perspective which Hashem gave us, the Earth is the sole reason for creation. It is the CENTER of the Universe so to speak. But when we look at the solar system and can measure the time it takes the satellites to orbit, we can see that the earth is revolving around the sun. I can hold these two concepts in my mind at the same time and it makes sense. The human mind is limited and we often find it difficult to conceive of concepts which seem contradictory.
That doesn't actually make sense. From OUR perspective the earth is NOT the center of the universe because we physically observe that it and the other planets in our solar system, revolve around the sun. Perhaps what you meant to say was that despite what is physically true, that the earth is not physically the center of the universe, nevertheless, from a metaphysical perspective (call it, God's perspective, if you will) the earth is the "center" in the sense that it's the most important. That would be sensible and logical.
In bold, the words "from our perspective" and "when we look" are the same thing. Our perspective is when we look and observe. That is when we see the earth revolve around the sun. So you must have meant metaphysical perspective in the first statement?
But let's be clear. The Lubavitcher rebbe was NOT saying what you and I are saying. He was trying to say that physically the observations are negated by some notion of "relativity" and that from any perspective the sun revolves around the earth, physically. With this, I simply cannot agree, and you yourself admitted that you do not agree, Muman! And that's ok!
-
I think you are misunderstanding what I said KWRBT... I said nothing about whether there are those who contradict Chabad. To suggest that is what I said means you did not attempt to understand me.
What I said is that there are other great Rabbis who have also said that the earth is the center of the world, and they have also said that the sun revolves around the earth. If you would like to look into it we can discuss it in the Jewish forum which I think such a discussion is better suited.
I also never ever suggested that a man is perfect and without error. I have heard you make this accusation a number of times, and I was not sure if you were saying it to me. I learn from many Rabbis and do not believe any one Rabbi speaks only truth. But I do not discount what a Rabbi says so easily because I have some respect for the Torah which was learned. I will not say anything bad about Chabad Rebbe because I see the work of his life, Chabad and the good it does, and I have HaKaret HaTov.
I said concerning this that I don't believe physically that the sun revolves around the earth. The entire system of satellites is based on this and there is much physical evidence that the Sun is the center of the solar system. But you should read again what I say about the Earth being the center of the universe. I know you believe a lot of things that I don't so I don't expect you to agree with me. You only believe things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, you doubt it. Again, this is not intended as an attack on you, I do believe you have a strong Jewish faith and as a result I believe with time you will come to realize what I have.
When I was younger I was such a science student. In high school I excelled in physics and did well in chemistry. I also had a propensity for computer software engineering {which I still do to this day}. I am not saying that everyone who goes into science has alterior motives, and there is a lot of science which has the goal which you seem to think it has, which is to discover the truth. But sometimes there are theories and experiments which are not noble, which aim to undermine others. One example I have brought before is the fact that the German scientists of Nazi germany had noble intentions in the horrific experiments they did on the Jewish population. It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) . They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948).
A lot of scientists are trying to make a buck selling their theories. This is one reason there is a big industry writing books on Global Warming, and people becoming Global Warming experts, going on TV to talk about Global Warming. And who funds this research? With Al Gore making it a national issue, the government will be a good source to fund a lot of this 'science'.
I believe that science is a great tool used by society in order to make life better for the people. Science is a way of observing the world, and making rules which we can work with, such as the laws of Physics and the Chemical and Atomic laws. These laws were created to be used by mankind to better the world.
But science becomes a double edged sword when it destroys the humanity in the world. I am again not accusing anyone here of destroying humanity, but I caution people to not bow at the altar of science. It will not 'SAVE' the world. It will not be the answer to all of lifes problems, at least in my understanding.
This is what I was trying to say.
-
I think you are misunderstanding what I said KWRBT... I said nothing about whether there are those who contradict Chabad. To suggest that is what I said means you did not attempt to understand me.
Fine. Then you must not have been responding to what you quoted from me above your comment. No problem.
What I said is that there are other great Rabbis who have also said that the earth is the center of the world, and they have also said that the sun revolves around the earth. If you would like to look into it we can discuss it in the Jewish forum which I think such a discussion is better suited.
Some said so before copernicus, some said so after. And other rabbis took on the view of copernicus and science (when science adopted copernicus view). It really doesn't matter one iota in my mind that rabbis might have erred in this issue.
That rabbis, even chazal themselves, can err in science is confirmed by a GEMARA! The gemara speaks about the gentile scholars and the Jewish scholars and their respective views about a certain subject in astronomy. The gemara sides with the gentile scholars' opinion and implies that Jewish Torah scholars can make mistakes in other subject areas (ie, science) and that gentile wisdom can also have something important to say in other non-Torah subjects.
There is also a Tosafoth that clearly states that we today do not follow the medical advice of chazal. There are many ways to explain that statement, but I think the simplest explanation is the most logically compelling and the one that makes sense to me - Medicine has improved to the point that their advice may have been the best possible thing in their day, but in ours, we follow the updated medicine which is now more correct. This does not bother me even slightly because the Torah was never intended as a medical handbook or a science textbook.
I also never ever suggested that a man is perfect and without error. I have heard you make this accusation a number of times, and I was not sure if you were saying it to me.
No, I only said this because I thought you were refuting my above statement that you quoted. This was directed at Massuh because he was promoting his chabad rebbe's opinion as the gospel and saying that anyone who disagrees commits a grave sin.
I learn from many Rabbis and do not believe any one Rabbi speaks only truth. But I do not discount what a Rabbi says so easily because I have some respect for the Torah which was learned. I will not say anything bad about Chabad Rebbe because I see the work of his life, Chabad and the good it does, and I have HaKaret HaTov.
Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what it means to "say something bad" about someone. To me, pointing out that I disagree with a view or that I think someone is mistaken in their own view (or misinformed, or incorrect, etc etc) this is NOT saying something bad about them! Being incorrect is not a slight on someone's character.
I said concerning this that I don't believe physically that the sun revolves around the earth.
Right, and as a result you and I both disagree with the Lubavitcher rebbe and any chabadnik that adopts all of his statements as canonical. And it's ok that we disagree.
-
You only believe things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, you doubt it.
This could not be further from the truth, Muman.
I separated this into a new post because this needs much attention.
You are making an incorrect assumption about me. It's not solely that this assumption is incorrect, but you would also see that it does not accurately describe me if you read my statements more clearly and if you actually read the post in question again, you will see that what I say contradicts this!
I granted you the possibility that from the metaphysical perspective, or spiritual perspective, or G-d's point of view, or however you want to call it, that earth is the 'center' of the universe because it is the most important, even though physically this doesn't manifest itself as residing in a physical location that is at the "middle" of the other bodies that are in the universe. In fact, that is exactly what I think it means regarding the various statements of chazal or otherwise that indicate or suggest the earth is the 'center' of the universe - center in terms of importance. Not physical location. And that notion is NOT something measurable or physically manifesting itself (although one could argue that the fact that earth is the only place with life on it is a physical manifestation of this spiritual reality!).
So when you say, " But you should read again what I say about the Earth being the center of the universe. " I'm not sure what you mean. I not only read it but I wrote extensively on your comment to try to clarify what you said. Was I correct in my clarification? Or if you dispute something - what do you dispute out of what I said?
Now let's discuss something more important
First, here's the correct formulation of what you wrote at the top, which I believe would make it an accurate statement.
Science only believe{s or considers/discusses} things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, {science doesn't address it}
I added edits in brackets and bold. That is consistently how I present the role and function of science on this website. But that does not mean that I operate as a scientific field. I'm a human being and there is more to life than just science. There is something beyond physical investigation and there is other knowledge in the world (ie - ethics, philosophy, morality, spiritual truths, and other things revealed by revelation). But that does not mean I have to deny science or the facts it uncovers, just because there are also other relevant branches of knowledge.
I believe in G-d, as I've indicated many times here, even though G-d cannot be measured or weighed, nor can his existence be proven or disproven, or measured or weighed. I believe in the G-d of Israel even though He does not have a "manifestation" in the physical world. The Torah tells us that G-d created the world, and I know this to be true, even though it can't be measured or proven. So obviously what you originally said about me is not true. I do believe in more than just the facts revealed by science. And behind the physical reality we live in is also a spiritual reality that we were given information about through avenues different from those we use to arrive at facts detailing the physical reality.
Again, this is not intended as an attack on you,
I don't take it as one, but I request that if you make statements about me, please take care to be sure that they are accurate statements.
I edited to add something in italics above
-
Thank you KWRBT, I appreciate your explanation and I fully respect it.
Judaism doesn't require everyone to share the same interpretation of Hashem. We all experience life and learn what we can, and attempt to teach others. As long as we all are seeking the truth then I have no problems. I am open to learn new things because I am not afraid of anything (or very much) in this world.
I respect your great knowledge in many issues and I hope that we both can contribute to the future of our people.
-
But sometimes there are theories and experiments which are not noble, which aim to undermine others.
Such experiments would be unethical and I don't believe unethical science is ok. When I speak about science I'm referring to the legal and ethical variety. It seems that you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, because some scientists out there might try to break the law or try to violate the ethical guidelines. (Or in some cases, the CIA or the govt encourages them to do so). In that case, throw out the CIA and the govt or whoever is breaking the law, but don't throw out science or make it a boogeyman. And certainly don't tell me that the facts it uncovers are not reliable because of this. What you are doing is basically trying to somehow "slander" the field of science by pointing out that not everyone involved in it is perfect. That is very simplistic and illogical. We could say the same thing about ANYTHING.
One example I have brought before is the fact that the German scientists of Nazi germany had noble intentions in the horrific experiments they did on the Jewish population.
WHAT?
No, they didn't! They had incredibly evil intentions. They violated the sanctity of life and treated humans cruelly and brutally for the sake of arriving at knowledge or simply to torture Jews. This is a gross violation of all ethics and even sanity! Even without Torah we would know this is wrong because it's so grievous.
-
It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) . They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948).
It took time to develop and refine a proper system of ethical guidelines. This work was 'permissible' according to the standards then, but surely it would not be today. And there is no reason to believe that the ethical guidelines, which got a lot better since those days, would ever be retracted or reverted back to more primitive formulations (so save the "subjective ethics" argument - I know that true ethics are from the Torah).
But rather than read that dude's incoherent rambling about the subject, here is much better information at Dr. Reverby's webpage. http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/fac_reverby.html
If you click on the synopsis of her recent work - http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/Synopsis%20Reverby%20%27Normal%20Exposure%27.pdf
You will note that the file says the following, and I quote with my own emphasis added:
"Cutler and the other physicians chose men in the Guatemala
National Penitentiary, then in an army barracks, and men and
women in the National Mental Health Hospital for a total of 696
subjects. Permissions were gained from the authorities but not
individuals, not an uncommon practice at the time, and supplies
were offered to the institutions in exchange for access.
-
It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) . They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948).
It took time to develop and refine a proper system of ethical guidelines. This work was 'permissible' according to the standards then, but surely it would not be today. And there is no reason to believe that the ethical guidelines, which got a lot better since those days, would ever be retracted or reverted back to more primitive formulations (so save the "subjective ethics" argument - I know that true ethics are from the Torah).
But rather than read that dude's incoherent rambling about the subject, here is much better information at Dr. Reverby's webpage. http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/fac_reverby.html
If you click on the synopsis of her recent work - http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/Synopsis%20Reverby%20%27Normal%20Exposure%27.pdf
You will note that the file says the following, and I quote with my own emphasis added:
"Cutler and the other physicians chose men in the Guatemala
National Penitentiary, then in an army barracks, and men and
women in the National Mental Health Hospital for a total of 696
subjects. Permissions were gained from the authorities but not
individuals, not an uncommon practice at the time, and supplies
were offered to the institutions in exchange for access.
I guess we can believe them better today, given all the honesty which has been exhibited by this generation.
How about this question...
What if Israeli scientists developed a bio-weapon which could covertly kill arabs without a trace? Would you use it in order to wipe out the arab population?
Think about it... Is it ethical? I know what the reaction will be... If they are trying to kill us, they must be killed first...
But you know what? That antisemitic website we came across last weekm, the Institute for Historical Review, claims that Israel has already developed this weapon...
Here is some of the article:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p24_Weber.html
Israel is Developing 'Ethnic Bomb' for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal
Mark Weber
Israel is working on an "ethnically targeted" biological weapon that would kill or harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources cited in a front-page report in the London Sunday Times, November 15, 1998 ("Israel Planning 'Ethnic' Bomb as Saddam Caves In," by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin).
In developing this "ethno-bomb," the British paper went on, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, and then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The goal is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside the host's living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly microorganisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.
The secret Israel program is based at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona, a small town southeast of Tel Aviv, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.
A scientist there said the task is very complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." Diseases could be spread by spraying organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.
Some experts have commented that while an ethnically targeted weapon is theoretically feasible, the practical aspects of creating one are enormous. All the same, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons.
US Defense Secretary William Cohen revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create "certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific." A senior western intelligence source confirmed that Israel is one of the countries Cohen had in mind, the Sunday Times report added.
Reliable Record
The Sunday Times report is all the more credible given the prestigious paper's past record of reliable reporting. In a detailed front-page report published on June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, that this torture was "widespread and systematic," and that it "appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy." At the time Israeli officials and Jewish-Zionist leaders in the United States protested the Sunday Times revelations, and denied the charge. Later, though, Israeli torture of prisoners was independently verified by Amnesty International, and others.
.
.
.
-
Btw, this is also a choice quote from the synopsis of Dr. Reverby's research:
Yet the PHS was aware then that this was a study that would
raise ethical questions. For as Surgeon General Thomas Parran made
clear “’You know, we couldn’t do such an experiment in this
country.”
So even at that time with more lax standards, this type of experiment could not have been done in America, and the govt, evil as it is in many examples, went out of its way to conduct ethically controversial studies on "undesirables" in other countries to avoid the restraints.
When you say, "I guess we can believe them better today, given all the honesty which has been exhibited by this generation,"
you have missed the point, Muman. Because it is not that someone is supposed to be more honest today. It's that 1. there are ethical and legal standards that restrain people (no matter how honest or dishonest they are) and 2. these standards are even higher and tightly enforced today than they've ever been.
-
How about this question...
What if Israeli scientists developed a bio-weapon which could covertly kill arabs without a trace? Would you use it in order to wipe out the arab population?
Think about it... Is it ethical? I know what the reaction will be... If they are trying to kill us, they must be killed first...
But you know what? That antisemitic website we came across last weekm, the Institute for Historical Review, claims that Israel has already developed this weapon...
Here is some of the article:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p24_Weber.html
Israel is Developing 'Ethnic Bomb' for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal
Mark Weber
Israel is working on an "ethnically targeted" biological weapon that would kill or harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources cited in a front-page report in the London Sunday Times, November 15, 1998 ("Israel Planning 'Ethnic' Bomb as Saddam Caves In," by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin).
In developing this "ethno-bomb," the British paper went on, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, and then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The goal is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside the host's living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly microorganisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.
The secret Israel program is based at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona, a small town southeast of Tel Aviv, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.
A scientist there said the task is very complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." Diseases could be spread by spraying organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.
Some experts have commented that while an ethnically targeted weapon is theoretically feasible, the practical aspects of creating one are enormous. All the same, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons.
US Defense Secretary William Cohen revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create "certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific." A senior western intelligence source confirmed that Israel is one of the countries Cohen had in mind, the Sunday Times report added.
Reliable Record
The Sunday Times report is all the more credible given the prestigious paper's past record of reliable reporting. In a detailed front-page report published on June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, that this torture was "widespread and systematic," and that it "appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy." At the time Israeli officials and Jewish-Zionist leaders in the United States protested the Sunday Times revelations, and denied the charge. Later, though, Israeli torture of prisoners was independently verified by Amnesty International, and others.
.
.
.
Um.... They claim this because they're morons. If this is true, why aren't the Arabs dying off?
And why should I care what the IHR wrote? I mean, why does it matter that they accuse us of that?
In a way, it almost gives us more motive to actually do it. If we're going to get blamed for doing it, either way, we might as well make sure it happens and get the terrorist enemies killed off.
-
The only reason I brought it up is that if it is 'scientifically' possible to develop such targeted bio-weapons then don't you think that Israeli scientists are working on it. The scary part is not that they can selectively target arabs, it is that such a weapon can be used against virtually any ethnic population. The questions of morality will be tested once again.
Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the big Pharmacuetical companies. Don't you realize how much they spend trying to get their products to market. Don't you think that sometimes scientists are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these companies, that they allow certain drugs to be sold while it is known that many people get sicker from these medicines. I do know that this goes on, and I do know that there is a special relationship between the pharma companies and the doctors. I realized this the last few times I had to visit the doctors. They were handing me all kinds of medicines which they hoped I would get hooked on. I did not take them, though I did have to take some pain medicine {thank Hashem I don't have to anymore}. How many times have I looked in the news to read about companies pulling drugs which have been found to have fatal side effects? Many times this happens, and the companies hire lawyers and end up settling for big dollars which are covered by insurance...
Anyway, I suspect you get the picture...
-
The only reason I brought it up is that if it is 'scientifically' possible to develop such targeted bio-weapons then don't you think that Israeli scientists are working on it. The scary part is not that they can selectively target arabs, it is that such a weapon can be used against virtually any ethnic population. The questions of morality will be tested once again.
Research like this into weapons and other defense purposes are certainly a lot more dangerous than other types of research, and they will touch upon moral boundaries to a much greater extent. But this work has nothing to do with the subject of evolution or evidence for evolution, or any of the other subjects we speak about when we discuss scientific findings or facts about the universe. When they dig up fossils, they are not forcing human slaves to do so. And they are not experimenting on humans or defense weapons in the process of looking at genetic congruence or phylogeny or anatomy etc. Again, it sounds like you want to point to one potentially dangerous thing about "science" in general and then say that that is somehow a reason I have to deny all conclusions reached by any science (or whatever conclusions you are personally uncomfortable with due to your theological convictions). That is not logical.
Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the big Pharmacuetical companies. Don't you realize how much they spend trying to get their products to market. Don't you think that sometimes scientists are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these companies, that they allow certain drugs to be sold while it is known that many people get sicker from these medicines.
What is your point, Muman? Scientific research is published in research journals, and these publications are transparent and accessible to all. Anyone can look at the methods and results and everything else about the experiments which prove the facts of evolution - and analyze whether they are correct or incorrect or whether the research is good quality or not. That some pharmaceuticals might use the facts and conclusions of science in order to make money, or some scientists might even do something unethical with it, DOES NOT DISCREDIT PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.
I'm going to rephrase exactly what you just wrote into a new formulation - watch this:
Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the doctors. Don't you
realize how much they exert trying to get their treatments administered. Don't you think that sometimes doctors are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these hospitals, that they allow certain treatments to be administered while it is known that many people get sicker from these treatments or the treatment itself was simply unnecessary.
So does that mean everything any doctor ever says is false (even when we have no cogent reason to explain why it is false)? Does that mean we have no medical knowledge because some doctors are creeps or some doctors break the rules or some doctors have evil intentions and bad motives and give unnecessary treatments in order to make an extra buck? Does that mean that scientifically verified medical facts (for instance, that penicillin works as a treatment for strep throat) must now be denied?!
NO. It doesn't.
So stop concluding the same irrational conclusion about science because you think some scientists might be immoral. Stop insisting with your insinuations that people must deny the published verifiable conclusions appearing in transparent publications because you think sometimes a scientist is not perfectly moral.
The same stupid argument you are making can be used against Judaism. Don't you agree that only a simpleton would suggest that because rabbis are not perfect, some of them are even immoral or really evil (ie some so-called rabbis turn out to be pedophiles or criminals), therefore Judaism cannot be trusted to say anything true about the Bible? Does that make any sense, when we can look at what Judaism says and look at the Bible and verify whether a statement is true or believable - having nothing to do with what kind of morality rabbis have either individually or collectively? Wouldn't you rebuke a person for making such a crazy argument that since rabbis are not perfect, therefore he can't accept Judaism has anything valuable to say?
When we discuss evolution here, we are talking about scientific facts that have been uncovered through research utilizing the scientific method. Those facts are relevant, even if you show me 100 scientists who cheated on their wives. Their conclusions and their findings can be contradicted and demonstrated false if they are wrong! Otherwise there must be a real scientific reason for a claim that they are incorrect if the experiment shows statistical significance and repeated success!
I do know that this goes on, and I do know that there is a special relationship between the pharma companies and the doctors. I realized this the last few times I had to visit the doctors. They were handing me all kinds of medicines which they hoped I would get hooked on. I did not take them, though I did have to take some pain medicine {thank Hashem I don't have to anymore}. How many times have I looked in the news to read about companies pulling drugs which have been found to have fatal side effects? Many times this happens, and the companies hire lawyers and end up settling for big dollars which are covered by insurance...
Anyway, I suspect you get the picture...
What picture am I supposed to get? You are basically engaging in ad hominem attack on all medical professionals and researchers. That does not make what they say untrue. And it also ignores that many of them are not evil or immoral people, but that's even beside the point. Even if they WERE all evil, they can still be demonstrating a true point or saying something accurately if the proof is on their side to a given statement.
-
I want to include one last quote from the synopsis of Dr Reverby's research into the guatamala experiments.
The studies in Guatemala demonstrate the connections between
research done in developing countries and the United States, and the
flow of information back and forth. It shows definitively that the PHS
did not give the men in Alabama the disease. And it reminds us that
the scientific enterprise must always be watched over, even when the
intentions are good and the “best men” do it.
What she writes is certainly true. But it does not logically follow that one must assume all science is false or that what facts are uncovered by science were either done unethically or are not true. Its truthfulness can be determined through proper scientific evaluation. What she is commenting on is related to your "complaint" about science, Muman. There have to be regulations and oversight along with legal and ethical standards to prevent abuses of the system as much as possible because of the evil inclination of man. That is true in any field! I never said contrary to this. And nonetheless, I still don't consider science some kind of corrupt endeavor or evil field like you seem to suggest it is. It has value, it uncovers true facts, and we would be wise to pay attention to them. That does not mean it can be unregulated and unfettered or that we can trust every scientist to be an upstanding gentlemen. That is really irrelevant to the question of whether a given scientific statement is true or not. The question of guarding against abuses of the system is a separate BUT ALSO IMPORTANT question.... but separate!
Btw, God forbid that I would consider science a corrupt endeavor, especially since the Rambam says in multiple places that engaging in scientific inquiry is a mitzvah and leads a person to a greater love of God.
-
FYI,
Gene specific Weapons of Mass Destruction are nothing new, and have been in development since the 1990's (if not earlier).
Probably safe to assume that the U.S. has a stockpile good for getting rid of almost everybody on the planet.
Already they're so highly specific that they are made to target specific ethnicities carrying certain chromosomes while having no effect on the primary racial group.
All of them have specific names.
To name just a few:
Spookout!
Nipper!
Zip It!
Chili con Carnage!
Hex on Mex!
Slope Dope!
NoJig!
No Show Eskimo!
Rag Cleaner!
Of course, all of these are weaponized bacteria or viruses, so all that has to be done is either aerial spraying, or even just pulling the tab on a small aerosol grenade and dropping it in a trashcan in a public area.
As long as they're used by the good guys there's no question of their being ethical.
-
Funny, we haven't witnessed any ethnicities mysteriously dying off.
-
Please check out this site by Dr. Geral;d Schroeder a renowned physicist and doctorates in many other fields.He is an orthodox and went to Yeshiva as well as a Professor at M.I.T.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/About.aspx
WITH THE ABOVE LINK YOU CAN READ ABOUT HIS THEORYS
Dr.Gerald Schroeder B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
PhD Earth Sciences and Physics
Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.
Schroeder's formal theological training in biblical, talmudic and kabalistic interpretation includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, of blessed memory.
The scientific career that Schroeder chose has given him varied and often unusual experiences. In his work with nuclear disarmament, he has been present at the detonation of six atomic bombs. Work in control of radioactivity has put him hundreds of meters below ground in U.S. and foreign uranium mines. Within this research, he invented and had patented the first real time monitor for airborne alpha beta gamma emitters. The government of the People's Republic of China, during the decade before it established direct contacts with Israel, was willing to overlook his Jerusalem address and had him as a frequent advisor. He also has consulted for agencies of the governments of Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, USA. Invitations for him to lecture have come from around the world. He has over 60 publications in the world's leading scientific journals on topics ranging from the radon atmosphere of the moon (in Science) to the metabolism of mother's milk (in Nutrition Reports International). The results of Schroeder's work have been reported in Time, Newsweek, Scientific American and in newspapers as far apart as Boston and Adelaide. His formal training in chemistry, physics and the Earth and planetary sciences provides the basis for the broad scientific perspective he brings to his books and lectures.
For the past twenty-five years, Dr. Schroeder has also pursued a study of ancient biblical interpretation. An ability to handle the biblical material in the original languages allows him to tap the subtle depths contained in the original texts. These nuances are often missed when working with translations. The uniqueness and success of Schroeder's approach integrating biblical and scientific knowledge is demonstrated by the success of his first book, Genesis and the Big Bang (published by Bantam Doubleday), and the wide acclaim for his second book The Science of God (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster and Broadway Books of Bantam Doubleday) which was on the Barnes & Noble list of non-fiction best sellers and was Amazon.com's best selling book in the field of physics/cosmology for all of 1998. This was followed by The Hidden Face of God, discovering the unity that binds all existence (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster). His book, God According to God, A scientist proves we've been wrong about God all along, was published in May 2009 with HarperOne and has enthusiastic endorsements by leading theologians, both Jewish and Christian, and a Noble Laureate scientist.
His books appear in 10 languages.
Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They've had five children with a changing number of grandchildren. He moved to Israel from the USA in 1971. In addition to his current work in radiation control, he teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies, writes and lectures on the extraordinary confluence of modern science and ancient biblical commentary.
-
I have never seen any experiment which proves evolution.
And I have never seen any experiment which proves creationism.
-
Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed. Both are faith-based. Both are religions, with their own catechisms and high-priests.
But "evolution requires a leap of faith that is far far beyond that of even the most fantastic creation myth!"(Sir Fred Hoyle).
60% of US people already plump for the creationist scenario.
Many more would if they were exposed to the scientific evidence for both scenarios, in a balanced manner.
-
Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed. Both are faith-based. Both are religions, with their own catechisms and high-priests.
That's simply not true.
Evolution, in many varieties (because that is a general "all-encompassing term") has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Many more would if they were exposed to the scientific evidence for both scenarios, in a balanced manner.
Didn't you just say they don't have evidence?
It's a joke that you equate evidence for evolution with "evidence" for creation. There is no evidence for creation. It's a philosophy. A true philosophy. But nonetheless, after the world was created, it evolved.
-
Despite 170 years of searching worldwide, exasperated paleontolgists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the gaps between the phyla, classes or even species,to support the supposed evolutionary line.
On the contrary,the fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly,existed contemporaneously,and in their fully developed complex form, from the beginning: "Neither Darwin,nor any Darwinian has ever given an actual causal explanation of any single organism or any single organ" (Sir Karl Popper).
-
Speaking of that FAQ, there is another great question right below it:
Question - Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
Answer - No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the G-d and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
Most people here probably don't care very much about evolutionary biology, just like most people in the world don't care much about obscure scientific fields that they do not have a connection to, or any other type of esoteric wisdom that they haven't found inspiration or reason to delve into. Of course, I have been trying to insist in this forum that accepting the scientific facts of evolution does not contradict adherence to Torah or Torah viewpoints. In expressing this, I am in agreement with my very learned rabbi who knows infinitely more about Torah than I do, yet also knows something about evolution and happens to be a physicist, and he asserts this position in the haredi yeshiva he teaches in all the time. He says that evolution does not contradict the Torah and that there are even sources upon which to base an acceptance of evolution with aspects of the Genesis narrative and its commentaries.
But this apparently is not enough for people. Now several people here have really stepped up the "anti-evolution" rhetoric. And they do not have scientific objections to evolution, mind you, they have a priori theological convictions that it "can't be true," and then argue against based on those religious convictions with a host of philosophical speculations and strange arguments about why people shouldn't accept the facts of evolution. Well, now I am left with the obvious choice of promoting high quality links that explain the wonders of evolution and G-d's creation in detail and which definitively disprove the silly statements being made here (this was otherwise probably superfluous or not necessary). The Talk origins site is a wealth of information. To anyone who will utilize it, I say, Enjoy, and in doing so, I hope you will gain a great deal of appreciation for G-d's wonders.
-
Despite 170 years of searching worldwide, exasperated paleontolgists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil,
False/Lie.
Question - If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Answer - Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fossil Hominids FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
Punctuated Equilibria FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Missing links still missing!? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
-
The stupendous myth of pre-historic men,missing link ape-men and man-apes is based entirely on the discretionary reconstruction of a very few,widely dispersed,unconvincing bone shards.
Java Man was found to have been based on an ordinary gibbon's skull,Orce Man on a donkey's skull, Ramapithicus on an orang utang,Pithecanthropus on an elephant's knee cap.
The sole evidence brought to support evolution and the existence of Nebraska Man,in the famous 1922 Scopes Trial,turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig! Whole imaginary phantom populations of supposed sub-humans,the once sensationalised in turn Cro Magnon Man, Neanderthal Man,Peking Man,Galley Hill Man,Fontechevade Man,Swanscombe Man,Grimaldi Man,Nutcracker Man,Olduvai Man,Wadjak Man,Leakey's 1470 Man, Piltdown Man etc.etc. are now acknowledged by the savants as being 100% true modern homo sapiens. 100% ape, or 100% hoax!-
After years of careful and extensive research,Lord Solly Zuckerman concluded that the entire concept of man's evolution from an ape-like creature is a phantasm.
(http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/pictures/hoax/Nebraska.jpg)
-
Wonga, it sounds like you are unwilling to consider scientific evidence. You have your religious convictions and nothing else will suffice. PLEASE understand that not all religious Jews take a similar stance, and there are many religious Jews (and non-religious) who are exposed to scientific knowledge and accept its veracity to arrive at truth and facts. For these people, myself included, your religious convictions are incorrect. There are other religious convictions which are superior and which do not deny the facts that science uncovers, and/or is not unwilling to engage with them.
-
Re: unethical scientists
Why is there any reason for scientists to be governed by "morals"?
Science examines and tests all things, takes nothing for granted, and presumes to be looking at the world without any preconceptions imposed by philosophy, history, and religion.
This is the reason so many scientists conclude that only atheism is a valid viewpoint for someone seeking verifiable truths.
Scientists are restrained from exploring "any and all possibilities" only by other human beings who insist that "not everything is permissible in a moral and ethical society".
Those who insist that morality and ethics govern the conduct of scientific research and conduct believe (correctly) that mankind is incapable of establishing a just moral order, and understand that Morality can only be "revealed" and "demanded" by some Divine and Higher Consciousness ruling the Universe.
Because science can't "prove" the existence of a Supreme Being Consciousness, most scientists insist that mankind need only behave in a way that benefits mankind, either individually, or as a species, and this "life philosophy" they call "Ethical Humanism".
Ethical Humanism considers mankind the end all and be all of reality, and they believe that G-d is not required for a society to know what is right and wrong.
Ethical Humanists insist that people will treat other people well because otherwise man and society is harmed.
This "code for conduct" quickly is proven fallacious, because it allows scientists to rationalize their desire for conducting experimentation on other living human beings "in the interests of science!" --
Throughout history scientists have come to the following conclusion:
"Look!" ... "If I can just inject living people with syphilis or cancer or radiation and study them, I will gain the scientific knowledge enabling science to treat and cure diseases and maladies about which we know little." ... "The reason we know little about them is because we are not allowed to do whatever we think necessary, be it vivisect living people, expose them to deadly levels of radiation to study human immune response, etc. ." ... "As a scientist, I know more than any lay person how to perform experiments which would increase human knowledge." ... "By increasing human knowledge, mankind as a species is greatly benefitted." ... "And if mankind benefits, is that not what ethical humanist philosophy teaches to be the ultimate and only morality?" ... "Of course that is the case!" ... "Therefore if a population is used as 'guinea pigs' without its permission or without its knowledge, and suffers and dies as a result, then I as a scientist am the greatest example of TRUE MORAL CONDUCT, for I have done for mankind a great service." ... "People always die every day and they've always died, so if a few more die it won't matter as long as others benefit from their loss." ... "Future generations will consider me a saint, and will honor the memories of those sacrificed for the cause of humanity!"
-
The geological strata lie perfectly flat upon each other, in smooth conformability, showing that they were laid down in quick succession without delay, not slowly over untold aeons.
Fossilisation does not occur today, and the very existence of perfectly preserved fossils implies swift mineralisation before the carcasses had time to decay. This can only be explained by catastrophic diluvial action and immediate burial under sediment ie. Noah's Flood.
The well known `Geological Column' of the text books (Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Miocene etc.etc.) looks neat, but in fact exists nowhere on earth. The earth's crust is actually one continuous bed of contemporaneous fossils, and its slicing `to order' to show supposed successive ages is arbitrary and fictitious.
(http://www.6000years.org/graphics/geo-column.jpg)
-
The well known `Geological Column' of the text books (Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Miocene etc.etc.) looks neat, but in fact exists nowhere on earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column
-
From the page:
They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
-
Good ridance.Science is more accurate and his professor cannot prove is whacko beliefes then he should go.
-
Good ridance.Science is more accurate and his professor cannot prove is whacko beliefes then he should go.
בס''ד
Ben Mizrachi from Bat Yam - you are the 16 year old Israeli Jew who wants to be a Nazi. You joined StørmFrønt, defended Hitler and the Nazis, called yourself an "Israeli fascist", and cursed G-d and Torah Judaism. What a sickness you are!
-
“Some people believe in the Torah implicitly, but they believe in evolution too. Exactly how you reconcile evolution with the Torah, that’s not so easy! They do a lot of tongue-twisting to explain that. Later generations will look back and say 'you were meshuggah: how could believe in evolution and believe in the Chumash at the same time?!' ” (Rav Avigdor Miller, tape 871).
(http://www.eichlers.com/Image.asp?src=0515913541cc5762067f57dcc4819d68aae032a6674bd5f9f1997bfa&altSrc=0514912c41c157620623578cc4c29d24aabd32c8671ed5a5f1cb7baa4b0e7cf4e47db8ece8a692776726ddab7d4aca737322c433e89a6778&imgPath=050b913741c7573e06245782c4fc9d20aab632f66716d580f186&width=400&height=400)
-
Re: unethical scientists
Why is there any reason for scientists to be governed by "morals"?
Science examines and tests all things, takes nothing for granted, and presumes to be looking at the world without any preconceptions imposed by philosophy, history, and religion.
This is the reason so many scientists conclude that only atheism is a valid viewpoint for someone seeking verifiable truths.
Scientists are restrained from exploring "any and all possibilities" only by other human beings who insist that "not everything is permissible in a moral and ethical society".
Those who insist that morality and ethics govern the conduct of scientific research and conduct believe (correctly) that mankind is incapable of establishing a just moral order, and understand that Morality can only be "revealed" and "demanded" by some Divine and Higher Consciousness ruling the Universe.
Because science can't "prove" the existence of a Supreme Being Consciousness, most scientists insist that mankind need only behave in a way that benefits mankind, either individually, or as a species, and this "life philosophy" they call "Ethical Humanism".
Ethical Humanism considers mankind the end all and be all of reality, and they believe that G-d is not required for a society to know what is right and wrong.
Ethical Humanists insist that people will treat other people well because otherwise man and society is harmed.
This "code for conduct" quickly is proven fallacious, because it allows scientists to rationalize their desire for conducting experimentation on other living human beings "in the interests of science!" --
I don't really think it's most scientists who believe in that manner, and I challenge you to provide a study which gives credence to your assertion.
I think most scientists acknowledge the need for morals to regulate the scientific endeavor and even most of the atheist scientists are against abusing humans "for the sake of science."
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Personally I have yet to meet a scientist who believes in ethical humanism in the manner that makes anything permissible "for the sake of science" including cruel experimentation on humans etc. And I have met many scientists thus far.
-
“Some people believe in the Torah implicitly, but they believe in evolution too. Exactly how you reconcile evolution with the Torah, that’s not so easy! They do a lot of tongue-twisting to explain that. Later generations will look back and say 'you were meshuggah: how could believe in evolution and believe in the Chumash at the same time?!' ” (Rav Avigdor Miller, tape 871).
Many rabbis disagree with this. There are many rabbis, some in the haredi camp, and more in the modern orthodox in America and religious zionist camp in Israel who disagree with what Rabbi Miller said.
I have already quoted Rav Kook who would disagree with a statement like this.
It is worth repeating here since you want to quote rabbis now.
Rav Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935) ZT"L, the founder of the Merkaz HaRav religious zionist flagship yeshiva in Israel, first chief rabbi of the Palestine Mandate and probably the greatest Posek and greatest thinker of his generation gave the following thoughts about evolution within his writings:
"The theory of evolution (hitpattehut) is increasingly conquering the world at this time, and, more so than all other philosophical theories, conforms to the kabbalistic secrets of the world. Evolution, which proceeds on a path of ascendancy, provides an optimistic foundation for the world. How is it possible to despair at a time when we see that everything evolves and ascends? When we penetrate the inner meaning of ascending evolution, we find in it the divine element shining with absolute brilliance. It is precisely the Ein Sof in actu which manages to bring to realization that which is Ein Sof in potentia." (Kook, Orot Hakodesh II:537)
"Even if it were clear to us that the order of creation was through the evolution of the species, there would still be no contradiction. We calculate time according to the literal sense of the biblical verses, which is far more relevant to us than is ancient history .... 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.)
Taken from http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/Kabbalah/Rav_Kook.shtml
-
Rabbi Miller was right, future generations will look back on evolutionary theory on origins just like they look back on the theory that the universe had always existed and laugh at the evolution believers.
And yes, I want to bet.
Do you claim that the earth is 6000 years old?!
-
“Those well meaning persons who felt impelled to interpret certain passages in the Torah differently from the time-honoured tradition, did so only in the mistaken belief that the Torah view on the age of the world was at variance with science; otherwise they would not have sought new interpretations in the Torah. There is no need to seek new reinterpretations in the Torah to 'reconcile' them with science” (Lubavitcher Rebbe).
(http://livecity.co.il/image/users/49007/ftp/my_files/pic/12rabi.jpg)
-
“Those well meaning persons who felt impelled to interpret certain passages in the Torah differently from the time-honoured tradition, did so only in the mistaken belief that the Torah view on the age of the world was at variance with science; otherwise they would not have sought new interpretations in the Torah. There is no need to seek new reinterpretations in the Torah to 'reconcile' them with science” (Lubavitcher Rebbe).
But this was said by a Rabbi who believed that the science supports a 6000 years old world, which it DOES NOT. And it's a rabbi who believed that the science supports a geocentric universe, which it DOES NOT. So while this rabbi is credible in other issues and has many valuable things to say, this type of statement can't be much use to people.
-
The only way I could ever believe in a 6000 year old earth and geocentric universe is if I completely lost my memory of all the scientific facts I've ever learned.
-
For those to whom this subject is an unsurmountable mental stumbling block, Professor Gerald Schroeder has shown that according Einstein the universe can be both 6000 years and 16 billion years old, and also simultaneously geocentric and heliocentric, all at the same time, all fully in accordance with current scientific thinking!
(http://www.notes.co.il/uripaz/user/Dr.%20Gerald%20Schroeder%27s.jpg)
-
Re: "For those to whom this subject is an unsurmountable mental stumbling block, Professor Gerald Schroeder has shown that according Einstein the universe can be both 6000 years and 16 billion years old, and also simultaneously geocentric and heliocentric, all at the same time, all fully in accordance with current scientific thinking!
Thank you, wonga66!
This is the exact truth of Torah.
Only the most crass ignoramuses are capable of insisting that the years and days described in Torah are identical to those used today IN ACCORD TO THEIR OWN MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF "TIME" BASED ON A LUNAR CALENDARS, JULIAN CALENDAR, GREGORIAN CALENDAR, OR ANY OTHER SUCH ARTIFICIAL DEVICE OF MAN.
And not only that, but Genesis is in complete accord with each and every new understanding such as quantum physics and the string theory.
Natural Laws governing the Universe, as we know them today, existed in far different forms long ago, so that electromagnetics, sonics, acoustics, time, and virtually everything else would be considered incomprehensible to us today.
The same goes for the movements of the celestial spheres within their planes - one "orbit" was not necessarily the same time span as we know it to be in 2010.
-
Good ridance.Science is more accurate and his professor cannot prove is whacko beliefes then he should go.
The one who should go is you.
-
The only way I could ever believe in a 6000 year old earth and geocentric universe is if I completely lost my memory of all the scientific facts I've ever learned.
I'm sure there are some over-anxious pietists like wonga who will try to go around with men-in-black style memory erasers.
-
If all those basins are stacked up on each other like that somebody should use some Drano on them!
-
I cannot believe that learned people fall for these theories. Global warming is the new religion, and Man was created by God, and did not evolve from an ape. You have to have a screw loose to believe what the Left tells you.
-
Re: "For those to whom this subject is an unsurmountable mental stumbling block, Professor Gerald Schroeder has shown that according Einstein the universe can be both 6000 years and 16 billion years old, and also simultaneously geocentric and heliocentric, all at the same time, all fully in accordance with current scientific thinking!
Thank you, wonga66!
This is the exact truth of Torah.
Gee, that sounds a lot different than the "truth" he presented before that you consented to...
::)
-
Re: "I challenge you to provide a study which gives credence to your assertion."
There were several such studies, but the scientists destroyed all of them to silence dissent! ;D
-
I find it very odd indeed that wonga now presents Gerald Shroeder's point of view here because Shroeder gives credence to the scientific view of an old universe and reconciles that by elaborating on a dichotomy between man and God's perspective in order to reconcile it with the Bereshith account. Up until now, wonga was intent on denying scientific conclusions.
While the overall point and scheme of Shroeder's work is true in the sense that science and Torah do not contradict each other, I disagree strongly with his explanations of Torah, and according to my rabbi who is a physicist, his physics also leave something to desire, but I can't really comment on that. It does seem very complicated and impressive. As for the Torah that he presents, however, while it's true that Torah and science are not a contradiction, I completely disagree with his presentation of "The Big Bang" as being the creation of the universe. The Big Bang, whatever one wants to say it was (beginning of the universe, or if one thinks like many physicists that it was only one in a series of universes) is NOT creation ex nihilo. The Big Bang occurred according to scientific laws including Einstein's equations and time and space existed (along with matter) prior to. Real creation ex nihilo means that literally nothing existed before the world was created.
All that said, The Moreh Nevuchim and the Kuzari both assert that one adheres to kosher Jewish belief if adopting the Platonic model, which I feel Shroeder's work actually represents.
-
It seems to me there are 3 basic approaches to this issue.
1. There are people who are either ignorant of scientific knowledge or - like wonga - insist on denying scientific findings. Therefore, there is nothing to reconcile and no question to be asked about Bereshith. And thus Bereshith will be taken literally and/or figuratively in given places depending on the given approach of the rabbinic sources adopted by the individual/rabbi.
2. Gerald Shroeder's approach which is basically like a "have your cake and eat it to" type of scenario because it sort of allows one to take Bereshith literally while at the same time accepting scientific fact. I think this is more of a neo-platonic view of the origin of the universe, but that is nonetheless a permitted belief.
3. The third approach is that scientific facts contradict the literal rendering of Bereshith and therefore to fully understand the text requires that the text itself implements allegory, metaphor, and other literary devices in its explanation and various messages. This can then reconcile what is being said with what else we know to be true from science. In this approach, the spiritual message behind Bereshith is more critically important, and since the Torah is not a science textbook, it is not expected to include scientific facts or explanations.
-
Your number 3 sounds more like kefirah to me!
Do you lay Tefillin every day?
What meaning does 5771 and its preceding Six Days have for you?
-
For those to whom this subject is an unsurmountable mental stumbling block, Professor Gerald Schroeder has shown that according Einstein the universe can be both 6000 years and 16 billion years old, and also simultaneously geocentric and heliocentric, all at the same time, all fully in accordance with current scientific thinking!
:::D So if all else fails, we're both right?
-
That is the strength and weakness of the Theory of Relativity: it is the great "democratizer" of science - the "great leveller of all scientific playing fields"! Everything is Relative! All opinions are equally valid! There are no Absolutes!
Of course, should Relativity ever be shown to be incorrect, which quite a few scientists believe is so, then it's back to Abolutism: in which case the zero-velocity results of all the Michelson-Morley-type experiments that failed to detect any velocity for the Earth are real, not apparent, and the Torah's geocentric paradigm of a stationary Earth is actually favoured, as is its recent Creation!
-
Your number 3 sounds more like kefirah to me!
The sure mark of an ignoramus is the eagerness to label beliefs they don't understand as kefira.
Do you lay Tefillin every day?
Isn't that what I'm required to do by Jewish law? So what does it have to do with how I interpret Bereshith? The halacha is non-negotiable.
What meaning does 5771 and its preceding Six Days have for you?
5771 is the dating of mankind. No source in the history of Judaism ever said otherwise. Nothing in chazal or rishonim. You mistakenly attach the 5771 to the dating of the universe rather than man, similar to the mistake of some modern day anti-science reactionaries whom you like to quote and similar to those who were involved in orchestrating various book-bannings.
The Rambam did not take the 6 days of creation literally. Do you claim his beliefs were kefira?
It seems you don't understand very much about haskafah in general or the fact that there are multiple hashkafas on many issues which are equally acceptable to Jewish belief. Start here:
www.hashkafacircle.com
Learn some.
I also suggest perusing a volume called "Daas Torah" by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn, either by purchasing it or browsing it at your local bookstore. You will quickly see that among the rishonim he cites on various hashkafic issues, there are multiple acceptable views that are different from each other.
-
5771 is the dating of mankind.
So you agree that Adam existed only 5771 years ago. That's good!
there are multiple hashkafas on many issues which are equally acceptable to Jewish belief
So you accept the hashkafa of those rabbis who hold by a 5771 year old geocentric universe as being 'equally acceptable'. Also, very good!
the Torah is not a science textbook
Correct. But on those subject on which the Torah touches science, the Torah
is authoritative.
-
Re: "So you agree that Adam existed only 5771 years ago. That's good! "
Adam Sandler
-
there are multiple hashkafas on many issues which are equally acceptable to Jewish belief
So you accept the hashkafa of those rabbis who hold by a 5771 year old geocentric universe as being 'equally acceptable'. Also, very good!
No, not equally acceptable to me because their view is incorrect and proven incorrect by scientific fact. So yes, indeed, they are wrong in their view (and shortsighted IMO), but that doesn't make them heretics! That has a real halachic definition. It does not mean "anyone I don't like."
So it is "acceptable" in the sense that no one is a min or a heretic for believing it or asserting it, even if they are incorrect in my personal opinion. It can still be considered kosher Jewish belief even if I think it's certainly the wrong hashkafa for one to adopt.
Similarly, I think that adopting a view which views working and jobs as forbidden/only for dropouts/without value is completely mistaken and foolhardy. Yet many haredim in Israel adopt this view, and its embedded in the education system. These people are not heretics for adopting that view which I think is wrong and harmful to the soul of the Jewish people, personally. (Then again, it's not the perfect parallel because these people have other problems - there are halachoth against taking a living from learning Torah and clear advices from chazal that being without work will lead to sin. But I'm just speaking in general in terms of an outlook that work is second-class or not befitting a 'talmid chacham.')
the Torah is not a science textbook
Correct. But on those subject on which the Torah touches science,
And according to the view I subscribe to, Bereshith account is NOT one of those subjects that Torah touches on science. So there is no problem even according to your formulation.
However, you should know that that view of yours is simply false. I've mentioned already in this thread, but the gemara speaks about gentile scholars and Jewish scholars and sides with the gentile scholars' opinion about the sun's path around the earth. Where do you think the Jewish scholars got their view from if not from Torah? Likewise, Baalei Tosafoth assert that we do not go by the medical advice of the gemara which is not applicable in our day. Whatever "science" we get from Torah (if any) is not just any old thing wonga can glean from the written text... It's the science that chazal themselves read into the text or extracted from the text . And in that sense, we are not bound to accept that science of chazal in all cases as per the gemara I refer to (forget where it is but can look it up and cite if you request).
-
Re: "So you agree that Adam existed only 5771 years ago. That's good! "
Adam Sandler
This was actually quite witty if you meant it to be. Indeed, I agree to the above premise and it comes down to how we define "Adam." Which I think in light of known facts and various sources, is also a bit up for debate.
-
Actually the Germara in Pesachim 94 is not talking about the path of the sun round the earth or vice versa, but something else entirely. And if you look at the meforshim, it's not at all clear that the Jewish Sages actually acquiesced to the Greeks.
Since the Tenach, Rambam, Maharal & half a hundred other sages held by geocentricity, and the geocentric model is fully acceptable to modern science, & is even used as the truest one possible by NASA in their satellite launches, to ridicule it is disingenuous.
-
Actually the Germara in Pesachim 94 is not talking about the path of the sun round the earth or vice versa, but something else entirely. And if you look at the meforshim, it's not at all clear that the Jewish Sages actually acquiesced to the Greeks.
It's pretty clear that it's a solid conclusion that can be drawn from that gemara, but you just don't want to believe it.
Since the Tenach, Rambam, Maharal & half a hundred other sages held by geocentricity,
Some of them lived before more advanced scientific facts were known.
Some of them lived after but did not have an expertise in the new science that had developed since the time of earlier sages.
Some were motivated by theological conviction to deny the science, even though the conviction was not shared by all rabbis.
And let's not forget:
Some rabbis ACCEPTED the heliocentric model. Clearly it's not a forbidden view, and in light of the fact that it's scientifically proven, that would be the model one should accept unless he wants to play ostrich and put his head in the sand or simply look like a fool to all his friends and family.
and the geocentric model is fully acceptable to modern science,
No, it isn't. Stop lying.
& is even used as the truest one possible by NASA in their satellite launches,
Moronic claim.
to ridicule it is disingenuous.
No need to ridicule it. Scientific fact discredits it.
-
That is the strength and weakness of the Theory of Relativity: it is the great "democratizer" of science - the "great leveller of all scientific playing fields"! Everything is Relative! All opinions are equally valid! There are no Absolutes!
Of course, should Relativity ever be shown to be incorrect, which quite a few scientists believe is so, then it's back to Abolutism: in which case the zero-velocity results of all the Michelson-Morley-type experiments that failed to detect any velocity for the Earth are real, not apparent, and the Torah's geocentric paradigm of a stationary Earth is actually favoured, as is its recent Creation!
There are proofs in mathematics, but not in the rest of science. Science approaches the truth, but never deals in absolute truths. There is always a door left open for falsification/new evidence to emerge. It's like a curve approaching zero, but never actually reaching it.
-
Not only is the non-rotating Earth model used by NASA for its satellite launches, the Geocentric model is also used as the truest possible one for artillery, satellites, navigation, weather forecasting, oceanography, gyroscopy, calendars, eclipses, etc. www.geocentricity.com
"We cannot feel our motion through space. Nor had any experiment evr proved that the Earth is in motion" (Professor Lincoln Barnett, Einstein's disciple).
http://www.geocentrism.com/possible.htm
The famous zero-velocity result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (to this day not a smidgen of the Earth's purported 67,000 mph velocity about the sun has ever been detected or measured!), the positive result of the Michelson-Gale experiment, Airy's Failure, the Sagnac Effect, the Barr Effect, Star Streaming, Varshni's Result, Aspden's Super-Dense Plenum theory, the uniformity of the Cosmic Background Radiation, Gamma-Ray Bursters concentric about the earth, quasars shining directly at the Earth, the Faraday Disc Generator Paradox, the uniqueness of the Earth/sun - Earth/moon eclipse relationship etc. all bespeak of the Earth's centrality in the cosmos.
"The Earth is located at the center of the universe" (Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3).
(http://www.softsia.com/screenshots/Earth-3D-Space-Tour_g0d5.jpg)
-
Wonga have you ever heard of a scientist named Copernicus? You seem not to have come up to date with his discoveries. Of course considering that he was part of what has been slandered on this board by some as an evil ethnicity, I guess some will dismiss his findings on that basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
Of course he got it partly wrong, he said the sun was the center of the universe. He came a lot closer to the truth than geocentrism however. He didn't know about the galactic center, or our local group of galaxies, etc.
-
By very definition of Relativity and Mach's Principle, the geocentric model is totally scientifically acceptable, as even an atheist like Bertrand Russell admitted "Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made".
I suggest you check out the scientific case for geocentrism at
eg
www.geocentricity.com
http://www.geocentrism.com/poss
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/mbvideo/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=98990E54C5FCA11Aible.htm
And aprt from the scientific case, there is also the Torah case. Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. The Tenach refers only to the Earth's staticity. Joshua commanded the Sun & Moon to stop moving, not the Earth its rotation! Hashem writes what He means, and means what He writes!
(http://www.brojon.org/images/articles/joshua/1.jpg)
-
Ok explain this. Why do we see OTHER planets rotating (rather than being fixed and motionless save their orbit around the earth like you would claim), and furthermore, from a perspective outside of earth, why do we see the earth rotating?
-
It is not possible to tell by the eyes alone what is rotating around what. For that you need to have a location that you know with certainty to be ABSOLUTELY stationary.
If you go to the Moon, it will seem as though the Earth & the entire universe are going round you.
If you go to Pluto, the universe will seem Plutocentric.
The only way to say what is truly going round what is to go outside of the universe (something that we cannot do whilst alive) and report back in.
As Torah-believing Jews, we believe that we have already had that report. And that report says that the Earth ain't movin'!
This is supported by all the experimental evidence eg Michelson-Morley, Jaseja, Klinkerfuess, Sagnac, Hoek etc etc
-
It is not possible to tell by the eyes alone what is rotating around what.
If you go to the Moon, it will seem as though the Earth & the entire universe are going round you.
Why would you say that? There are certain parts of the moon where the earth would never rise much off the horizon. Plus, you could still see the earth rotating from this outside perspective. Also why do people on space stations see the rotation of the earth?
If you go to Pluto, the universe will seem Plutocentric.
Charon would be orbiting, but I doubt observations would show the entire universe would be pluto-centric. Of course stars would appear to "rise" and "set" due to Pluto's own rotation.
The only way to say what is truly going round what is to go outside of the universe (something that we cannot do whilst alive) and report back in.
Not really. If you get a cheap telescope and a fairly dark sky, you can observe the larger moons of Saturn orbiting Saturn if you keep watching and see them move night after night. Why don't they orbit the earth? Hmmmm?
As Torah-believing Jews, we believe that w have already had that report. And that report says that the Earth ain't movin'! This is supported by all the experimental evidence eg Michelson-Morley, Jaseja, Klinkerfuess, Sagnac, Hoek etc etc
I'm not Jewish but I do really think that anyone who holds to geocentrism these days isn't thinking very clearly.
-
According to Mach's Principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
it is the inertial field around the Earth that is rotating around a stationary Earth every 24 hours. Once eg a geostationary satellite or a Shuttle enters that field, it is subject to its rotation, and the Earth is stationary underneath it eg a train moving away from a station: a watertight case can be that it is the train that is stationary and that it's the station that is moving away: not theory, not conjecture, not mathematical constructs, but hard physics!
-
I'm not Jewish but I do really think that anyone who holds to geocentrism these days isn't thinking very clearly.
Well first read this by a non-Jew and let me know what you think http://www.geocentrism.com/possible.htm
-
wonga66 is RIGHT! Rubystars!
I just read that article and it convinced me that we've been lied to for many years.
To prove the article's point, I went outside and threw a penny straight up into the air.
I knew that the penny would fall straight down on its return trip, so if the Earth actually turned on its axis, the penny would land a foot or more away from me.
The penny came straight down and hit my shoes, proving that the Earth has no motion, and conclusively proving that Torah is true and that science is a lie invented by Marxists and Democrats as an excuse to give amnesty to Mexican illegal aliens!
-
The relative (wonga's favorite word) motion of the earth to the penny is slow enough to where the movement of the earth beneath the penny wouldn't be perceptible with such a short flight.
-
Just because you might think it's crazy doesn't mean that YOU TOO shouldn't be put to death for daring to question the Will of Ha'Shem!
-
I'm not Jewish but I do really think that anyone who holds to geocentrism these days isn't thinking very clearly.
Well first read this by a non-Jew and let me know what you think http://www.geocentrism.com/possible.htm
I think it's an excellent example of creationist quote mining. From the perspective of the earth, the sun does appear to move, but if you have a perspective outside of the earth, you can see the earth rotating. You don't have to step outside the entire universe to see whether or not the earth moves. Also if the planets didn't move around the sun, then why are scientists able to use gravitational slingshots to put space probes further out, by calculating orbits?
Just because you might think it's crazy doesn't mean that YOU TOO shouldn't be put to death for daring to question the Will of Ha'Shem!
I know how dare I question anything, logic and reason are strictly forbidden.
-
Evolutionists :::D the 20th century was over long ago!
-
On today's Debka Report there's an ad featuring a likeness of "Dr. Ruth" Westheimer with a quote from her which reads:
"The Talmud states that it is the duty of every man to sexually satisfy his wife!"
Well, Dr. Ruth, I'm here to state for the record, that the only way Jewish wives can be sexually satisfied by their Jewish husbands is for their husbands never to have sex with them again!
;D
-
Well, Dr. Ruth, I'm here to state for the record, that the only way Jewish wives can be sexually satisfied by their Jewish husbands is for their husbands never to have sex with them again!
Are you trying to say we can't satisfy our women?
-
The Rambam states that one of the reason for circumcision is to actually reduce the sexual pleasure that a Jewish man receives during intercourse.
The Jewish male is thereby made somewhat more refined and less bestial than a goy, especially eg Negroes, who have huge milos (foreskins).
When a Negroe has sexual intercourse, they get so much pleasure from the extra friction from their prepuce, (like a piston in a double-sleeved cylinder) which a Jew does not have, that many of them pass out from the ecstasy and become permanently boss-eyed! The name "Cham" (= 'Hot') was given by Noah to this son, the ancestor of the Blacks, indicating his hot, passionate, licentious tendencies!
-
The Rambam states that one of the reason for circumcision is to actually reduce the sexual pleasure that a Jewish man receives during intercourse.
The Jewish male is thereby made somewhat more refined and less bestial than a goy, especially eg Negroes, who have huge milos (foreskins).
When a Negroe has sexual intercourse, they get so much pleasure from the extra friction from their prepuce, (like a piston in a double-sleeved cylinder) which a Jew does not have, that many of them pass out from the ecstasy and become permanently boss-eyed! The name "Cham" (= 'Hot') was given by Noah to this son, the ancestor of the Blacks, indicating his hot, passionate, licentious tendencies!
You really sound sick every time you talk about women or about sexual relations.
-
Re: "Negroes, who have huge milos (foreskins). "
Jimmy Carter can't be circumcised because there's no end to the schmuck!
-
You really sound sick every time you talk about women or about sexual relations.
If Hashem devotes two whole sedras, Tazriya and Metzora, to sexual & skin diseases, it is obviously an important subject.
Would you dare to call Hashem "sick" ch"v?!
-
Re: "The Rambam states that one of the reason for circumcision is to actually reduce the sexual pleasure that a Jewish man receives during intercourse. "
What a great salesman! :o
You'd think that with a "pitch" like that, men would be fighting each other "tooth and nail" to be first in line for conversion to Judaism!
Will there ever be an end to this suffering by Jewish men?
First they get their wee-wee put in a pencil sharpener so they have reduced pleasure, then they get married to a Jewish bride who gives them about 2 weeks worth of "reduced pleasure" and before cutting off sex altogether!
(they might as well just "cut off" the whole thang and get it over with!) :(
-
You really sound sick every time you talk about women or about sexual relations.
If Hashem devotes two whole sedras, Tazriya and Metzora, to sexual & skin diseases, it is obviously an important subject.
Would you dare to call Hashem "sick" ch"v?!
You are bringing up a different question. You know exactly what I was referring to, there's no need for me to explain.
-
You really sound sick every time you talk about women or about sexual relations.
If Hashem devotes two whole sedras, Tazriya and Metzora, to sexual & skin diseases, it is obviously an important subject.
Would you dare to call Hashem "sick" ch"v?!
You are bringing up a different question. You know exactly what I was referring to, there's no need for me to explain.
Oh and by the way I said "every time" because I remember you justifying sexual relations with young girls or saying Hassidic Jews go to Uman to have sex with Ukrainian prostitutes, just to mention recent threads.
-
Actually I merely asked about what Halachic scenario could occur under which marriage between Torah-observant Jews might in the future be restored to the Halachically mandated minimum age of 12.
And I gave a link to Haaretz & JP articles about how the "Breslov Modesty Patrol" does sterling work in keeping our boys in Uman on the straight & narrow!
-
And aprt from the scientific case, there is also the Torah case. Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. The Tenach refers only to the Earth's staticity.
They key word here is REFERS.
That means the Torah is not teaching science. It is something you are interpreting from it in a mistaken literalism - something that's not actually there.
Thus the reason that many rabbis have ACCEPTED the Copernicus model, especially in recent times. And these rabbis I refer to, you would never dare say a harsh word about them.
Joshua commanded the Sun & Moon to stop moving, not the Earth its rotation! Hashem writes what He means, and means what He writes!
Suddenly Hashem wrote the book of Joshua! Wow, that's amazing!
-
On today's Debka Report there's an ad featuring a likeness of "Dr. Ruth" Westheimer with a quote from her which reads:
"The Talmud states that it is the duty of every man to sexually satisfy his wife!"
Well, Dr. Ruth, I'm here to state for the record, that the only way Jewish wives can be sexually satisfied by their Jewish husbands is for their husbands never to have sex with them again!
;D
Speak for yourself, junior.
-
Actually I merely asked about what Halachic scenario could occur under which marriage between Torah-observant Jews might in the future be restored to the Halachically mandated minimum age of 12.
And I gave a link to Haaretz & JP articles about how the "Breslov Modesty Patrol" does sterling work in keeping our boys in Uman on the straight & narrow!
No, you said more than that. Listen, I'm not trying to scrutinize you. I read your posts, I appreciate some of the topics you bring up and, unlike some other members of this forum, I don't see you as a "troll". But be honest.
-
Joshua commanded the Sun & Moon to stop moving, not the Earth its rotation! Hashem writes what He means, and means what He writes!
Btw, Rambam says specifically that was not a miracle and speaks about the longest day of the year etc...
Surprised?
-
Evolutionists :::D the 20th century was over long ago!
The "opponents," or evolution deniers, would be wise to acknowledge that the 19th century is over, so are the 1930's 40's 50's 60's etc, and the field has advanced in leaps and bounds since the ideas were originally proposed. The mountains of evidence amassed since then make it impossible to deny, and it also makes fishing out quotes from Darwin himself completely dishonest.
-
Under Einstein's Relativity, which is the prevalent theory which presumably you agree with, you are OBLIGED to accept the geocentric theory as being an EQUALLY valid model, as much as I am the heliocentric theory.
What part of Einstein's quote don't you understand?!:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 1938).
If you have disproved Relativity, and shown that there is a favored non-moving location or aether in the universe, in an absolute sense, then you will get a Nobel Prize.
If you disagree with Relativity, as do some scientists, then how do you explain the Michelson-Morley result?
-
Re: "Tazriya and Metzora, to sexual & skin diseases "
Question regarding "Identifying leprosy":
Torah clearly describes the basis for a Priest "diagnosing" a skin disease referred to as "leprosy", sets forth the "treatment" of same, and also clearly describes the 'symptoms', diagnoses, and treatments of "leprosy" found affecting stone buildings.
Because today "leprosy" has been scientifically studied and been determined to be a disease of the nervous system caused by a microbacillus which is spread through contact with human secretions such as saliva and mucous droplets expelled through sneazing and coughing, should we as modern Jews consider the that "leprosy" of Torah is an altogether different disease than the one called leprosy today?
-
On today's Debka Report there's an ad featuring a likeness of "Dr. Ruth" Westheimer with a quote from her which reads:
"The Talmud states that it is the duty of every man to sexually satisfy his wife!"
Well, Dr. Ruth, I'm here to state for the record, that the only way Jewish wives can be sexually satisfied by their Jewish husbands is for their husbands never to have sex with them again!
;D
This is the kind of joke that the people from StørmFrønt would enjoy.
-
On today's Debka Report there's an ad featuring a likeness of "Dr. Ruth" Westheimer with a quote from her which reads:
"The Talmud states that it is the duty of every man to sexually satisfy his wife!"
Well, Dr. Ruth, I'm here to state for the record, that the only way Jewish wives can be sexually satisfied by their Jewish husbands is for their husbands never to have sex with them again!
;D
This is the kind of joke that the people from StørmFrønt would enjoy.
O0
-
I think you really misunderstood it wonga. I think if you pick any point in the universe, then everything is moving relative to that point. That doesn't change the fact that the earth moves or that it orbits the sun.
-
I think you really misunderstood it wonga. I think if you pick any point in the universe, then everything is moving relative to that point. That doesn't change the fact that the earth moves or that it orbits the sun.
Exaaaactly.
-
This is the kind of joke that the people from StørmFrønt would enjoy.
Don't we have enough of that kind of innuendo around here?
-
This is the kind of joke that the people from StørmFrønt would enjoy.
Don't we have enough of that kind of innuendo around here?
Do you imply that the original joke in question was acceptable?
Also, I think yaakov meant that it's an antisemitic joke (or extremely self-hating), and that is why StørmFrønt would like it. What innuendo do you refer to?
-
This is the kind of joke that the people from StørmFrønt would enjoy.
Don't we have enough of that kind of innuendo around here?
Do you imply that the original joke in question was acceptable?
Also, I think yaakov meant that it's an antisemitic joke (or extremely self-hating), and that is why StørmFrønt would like it. What innuendo do you refer to?
I just don't like it when JTFers are accused of being Nazis. It just seems extreme that's all, especially when directed toward a Jewish member.
-
evolution is a urban myth.
Both creation and evoltion are religions but a creator is a far more logical faith than non observable an retestable theory of evolution.
-
evolution is a urban myth.
Both creation and evoltion are religions but a creator is a far more logical faith than non observable an retestable theory of evolution.
I don't reject that God created the universe. I just think that evolution could have been a tool used to create different forms of life.
-
evolution is a urban myth.
Both creation and evoltion are religions but a creator is a far more logical faith than non observable an retestable theory of evolution.
I don't reject that G-d created the universe. I just think that evolution could have been a tool used to create different forms of life.
I'm not sure why some religious people on JTF are so dead-set against that, even as a possibility. They presume to know the ways of G-d I guess.
-
I understand it, I just moved beyond that mindset after I got more knowledge. It can be an incredibly emotional thing to struggle with but in the end a person who values the scientific method has to follow the evidence where it leads, even if it leads somewhere you don't want it to.
You have the creationists telling them that they don't have to give up accepting science to keep the literal interpretation. Without having studied science, how would someone know better? Some of the creationists had extremely clumsy arguments, like Kent Hovind, yet he was still very popular. Others, like Hugh Ross, are more sophisticated. However they all capitalize upon the fact that the general public doesn't have a lot of scientific knowledge, and can be easily led by big words, especially if what they are saying reinforces a pre-conceived idea.
There's also the guilt trip that others might put on people. I mean to some, being an evolutionist might as well be equivalent to being an atheist, so announcing to others that you accept evolution can be met with a lot of anger/upset/misunderstanding from those in a person's family, place of worship, etc.
-
There's also the guilt trip that others might put on people. I mean to some, being an evolutionist might as well be equivalent to being an atheist, so announcing to others that you accept evolution can be met with a lot of anger/upset/misunderstanding from those in a person's family, place of worship, etc.
I certainly get the brunt of this type of insanity, but I pick my battles and in the end don't care what people say! I've ruffled more than a few feathers though (and sure I will do so again).
I've come to realize that in the same way that my views of science (and those of my rabbi and others whose approaches I adhere to and agree with) get shunned and met with disbelief, knee-jerk opposition, and accusation, so too do my political beliefs and my Kahanist attitudes with regards to the middle east situation as this view is also extremely uncommon among frum American Jews I've met. Don't know if it's just the areas where I've been, the types of Jews I've met or simple coincidence or what...
-
I used to debate this topic on a daily basis in a chat room dedicated to it. Some of the so-called pious religious people were the absolute worst. One told me he'd laugh when I was burning in hell. Another one said he was going to put a curse on the evolutionists in the room and started chanting this weird stuff in another language (maybe one he made up!), and then there were people that would say stuff like "I'll pray for you", but it would be in a nasty type of tone, as if to say "You're beyond help, heathen!"
-
evolution is a urban myth.
Both creation and evoltion are religions but a creator is a far more logical faith than non observable an retestable theory of evolution.
I don't reject that G-d created the universe. I just think that evolution could have been a tool used to create different forms of life.
well god is an idiot if evolution is true, he makes errors, plus evolution completely goes against the biblical version of creation, reptiles are created in a differet order etc.
You literally cannot believe in evolution and the bible. Now i think you can interpret the earth as millions or even billions years old. That i can accept, even though non of us truely know how long ago it was created.
But what i do know is the religion of evolution is quite possible the worst theory ever, but this poor scientist has been sacked because he doesnt believe in this fallacy.
Explain to me love, hate, envy, emotions, explain to me dna. Dna is incredible, dna organises things better than all the greatest minds can produce.
Not one of you were there "in the beggining", until we have a time machine im fed up with arrogant atheist twlling me and other people how "stupid we are" for not accepting evolution.
Well if its so easy i want those that believe in it to explain it to me. i want someone here who believes in evolton to do a brief timeline from how the universe was created, to how the first living cell was formed, to how we have the beutiful and incredible organzed universe.
Good luck...
-
I know frum haredi Jews who believe the lies of netanyahu and even though they don't believe peace agreement is possible they still think that Jews have to give over "westbank" to the arabs and can't/shouldn't keep ruling over them.
Some make a distinction between already existing Jewish settlements vs. what is seen as not-Jewish-inhabited or simply "arab"
-
evolution is a urban myth.
Both creation and evoltion are religions but a creator is a far more logical faith than non observable an retestable theory of evolution.
I don't reject that G-d created the universe. I just think that evolution could have been a tool used to create different forms of life.
well G-d is an idiot if evolution is true, he makes errors,
wtf?
What errors would those be?
-
plus evolution completely goes against the biblical version of creation, reptiles are created in a differet order etc.
You literally cannot believe in evolution and the bible.
That's not true according to many very learned people.
Now i think you can interpret the earth as millions or even billions years old. That i can accept, even though non of us truely know how long ago it was created.
But doesn't that also "completely goes against the biblical version of creation"
Why can you interpret this issue but other issues are off limits or not open to interpretation?
Explain to me love, hate, envy, emotions, explain to me dna. Dna is incredible, dna organises things better than all the greatest minds can produce.
So what? G-d created many incredible things. Even if He created them gradually and developed them with environmental cues and selection pressures. If DNA was more simplistic, you would accept evolution?
-
well G-d is an idiot if evolution is true, he makes errors, plus evolution completely goes against the biblical version of creation, reptiles are created in a differet order etc.
Christians or Jews who accept evolution generally see the order and other things in Genesis/Bereshit as having some kind of symbolic meaning. I'm not really a Bible scholar so I am not going to claim to understand it very well. However I do see a lot of clear and plain symbols there, even if I don't completely understand all of their meanings.
You literally cannot believe in evolution and the bible. Now i think you can interpret the earth as millions or even billions years old. That i can accept, even though non of us truely know how long ago it was created.
A lot of creationists would tell you that it's impossible to believe in an old earth and the Bible at the same time. They would call you an evolutionist! Some, like Wonga, seem to think the Bible requires that you reject a heliocentric solar system even.
Our universe is very old, possibly 13 billion years old. Our earth is much younger, around 4 1/2 billion years old.
These dates aren't arrived at randomly, they are based on observation of evidence and the scientific method.
But what i do know is the religion of evolution is quite possible the worst theory ever, but this poor scientist has been sacked because he doesnt believe in this fallacy.
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
Explain to me love, hate, envy, emotions,
We're not just a body you know, we're also a spirit. However God did give us brains that function in such a way that we can feel emotions through those brains.
explain to me dna. Dna is incredible, dna organises things better than all the greatest minds can produce.
DNA codes for proteins, it's not really a blueprint. I wish I had The Greatest Show on Earth, but I only read it once, it was borrowed from the library. That book has a very good chapter explaining this. I am not generally fond of Dawkins but he does know how to translate complex scientific concepts to something that's easier to understand.
Not one of you were there "in the beggining", until we have a time machine im fed up with arrogant atheist twlling me and other people how "stupid we are" for not accepting evolution.
What do you mean? We can dig down and find fossils of creatures that were "there" and those fossils, as well as all kinds of other evidence from the past, such as comparative DNA, etc. can tell us a lot about the history of life, and the history of this planet.
That's like saying that you can never find out who is guilty of a murder that didn't have eyewitnesses. What if the prosecutor in a case showed DNA evidence matching the defendant, a murder weapon that was registered as owned by the defendant and had the defendant's finger prints on it, and a security video tape showing the defendant breaking into the home of the murder victim? it seems like an open and shut case. Then the defense lawyer gets up, and says "You can't prove it, you weren't there! If you weren't there, then you don't know who murdered the victim!"
-
plus evolution completely goes against the biblical version of creation, reptiles are created in a differet order etc.
You literally cannot believe in evolution and the bible.
That's not true according to many very learned people.
Now i think you can interpret the earth as millions or even billions years old. That i can accept, even though non of us truely know how long ago it was created.
But doesn't that also "completely goes against the biblical version of creation"
Why can you interpret this issue but other issues are off limits or not open to interpretation?
Explain to me love, hate, envy, emotions, explain to me dna. Dna is incredible, dna organises things better than all the greatest minds can produce.
So what? G-d created many incredible things. Even if He created them gradually and developed them with environmental cues and selection pressures. If DNA was more simplistic, you would accept evolution?
humans brought death into the world, not god. Evolution relies on suvival of the fittest and "freak mutations"(even though no mutations have been show to produce a positive development.
OK i want you to go through the evolution timechart, then the biblical time chart, and show me if reptiles, earth, sun fish etc were all perfectly in order with each other. Good luck with that one.
And so your answer is "oh we cant explain emotuons etc so we will assume they just evolved over millions of years."
Do you not see, evolution is a religion, a faith, and a cruel one at that. God woul not have such a cruel evil Way of making thing. God made the bomberdeer beatle perfectly and first time. God made the dna perfectly first time.
As i say both are faiths but god doesnt make errors, so evolution is wrong biblically and scientically.
-
I agree that there are some issues which don't jibe with the faith of Judaism (of course in my humble opinion). Although Judaism is not as dogmatic as the other faiths which use Jewish scriptures there are some very important things learned from the Genesis story which are universal truths of humanity. It is not a science book nor a history book and often times there are metaphors and allusions, but the basic premise is that man is the reason that Hashem created the entire creation. And that the plants did not sprout until man came and prayed for rain is not explainable by the science. There are many questions about what the science is learning, but it should not all be accepted as absolute fact until we attempt to understand it in light of humanity.
I have said before that I have my doubts about the evolutionary theory and remain unconvinced.
-
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
-
Christians or Jews who accept evolution generally see the order and other things in Genesis/Bereshit as having some kind of symbolic meaning. I'm not really a Bible scholar so I am not going to claim to understand it very well. However I do see a lot of clear and plain symbols there, even if I don't completely understand all of their meanings.
yom can mean day, period of time, so that i can accept that the universe can range from 6000 to billions of years old. But genesis creation account completely differs from the evolution timeline of events. Just compare. FIsh , reptiles etc were created in completely different order to evolution. Either evolution is right, or the bible is right, they cannot coincide.
A lot of creationists would tell you that it's impossible to believe in an old earth and the Bible at the same time. They would call you an evolutionist! Some, like Wonga, seem to think the Bible requires that you reject a heliocentric solar system even.
Our universe is very old, possibly 13 billion years old. Our earth is much younger, around 4 1/2 billion years old.
These dates aren't arrived at randomly, they are based on observation of evidence and the scientific method.
That's like saying that you can never find out who is guilty of a murder that didn't have eyewitnesses. What if the prosecutor in a case showed DNA evidence matching the defendant, a murder weapon that was registered as owned by the defendant and had the defendant's finger prints on it, and a security video tape showing the defendant breaking into the home of the murder victim? it seems like an open and shut case. Then the defense lawyer gets up, and says "You can't prove it, you weren't there! If you weren't there, then you don't know who murdered the victim!"
But evolution doesnt have the dna evidence, it never been "caught on camera", the missing links are not missing links, they are simply bones found in the ground.
There is not one shred of evidence for evolution ruby. I see the brilliant design of a bomberdeer beatle, or wood pecker, or vanilla bee etc etc, and i see how fantastic god made it and designed it. Why would god want there to be "million" years of failings to finally get it right??Not logical.
-
Well if its so easy i want those that believe in it to explain it to me. i want someone here who believes in evolton to do a brief timeline from how the universe was created, to how the first living cell was formed, to how we have the beutiful and incredible organzed universe.
Universe:
Approximately 13-15 billion years ago, There was a quantum fluctuation, or two big membranes in multi-dimensional space collided. We're not sure exactly what happened. The universe was created.
Here's a timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
Basically the universe started out as a very small point and expanded rapidly. Along the way, very basic particles formed into stars and galaxies, "cooking" elements to create more complex elements. Most other elements besides hydrogen can only be formed inside stars. Eventually these stars would die out and go nova, dispersing the new elements. Yes you are made of stardust, and so is everything around you.
Eventually after generations of stars, our solar system began to form from a dust disc. Our sun was at the center, and planets formed from the rotating disc. There were a lot of mini-planets at first, and these collided until larger planets were formed.
Eventually we had the solar system we're familiar with.
The earth originally had no moon, until a planet-sized object (Theia)collided with the earth, destroying both the earth and the object, combining them together and when everything settled, there was both an earth and a moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
This early stage of the earth was called the Hadean era. There was no life then, the earth was still inhospitable and if you were to go back and see it in some kind of time machine, it probably wouldn't look much like the earth we know at all. The moon was a lot closer back then (it's been gradually moving away)
(http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Images/NewHadean.jpg)
-
According to Torah interpretation:
All that existed before the creation was null and void, and Hashem hovered over the water.
Beresheit 1:2
Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.
Then Hashem said "Let there be light!", and it was.
Hashem separated light and dark, and this was called Day One.
The second day consisted of separating the waters, the waters above and the waters below. He did not think this separation was good.
The third day separated the waters below from the dry land, this he called tov (good). Hashem brought forth vegetation, all seed bearing fruits and herbs, this too was on the third day.
Then the fourth day Hashem brings forth the great luminaries in the sky. The sky consists of the sun and moon {which according to Jewish midrash were created the same size, the moon was shrunk to its smaller state because of its jealousy}. This creation he called tov (good).
Beresheit 1:14
And God said, "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night, and they shall be for signs and for appointed seasons and for days and years.
And they shall be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth." And it was so.
And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars.
This all was created on the fourth day.
The fifth day brings the creation of the insects and swarming creatures. He created the fish in the sea and the birds of the sky on this day.
Beresheit 1:21-22
And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."
Now comes the sixth day, upon which animals and humans are created...
Beresheit 1:24-27
And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
And we all know what Hashem created on the seventh day, his greatest creation of all, complete rest, Shabbat Shabbaton. This was created on the seventh day...
In the next chapter is discussed how Hashem withheld the plant life from growing, because it was created such that it needed to be worked by man {either physically or through prayer}...
Beresheit 2:5-9
Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.
And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.
And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man whom He had formed.
And the Lord God caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
So if any of this makes sense according to the evolutionary theory then I am not aware of it...
-
Notice that Relativity does not say that the universe has no center. It says that we cannot determine where that center is.
Thus it is purely a matter of personal/philosophical choice, and in no way can you say that for the Earth to be at the center, is incorrect, as the savants admit here:
http://www.geocentrism.com/possible.htm
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” (Cosmologist George Ellis)
And our "philosophy" is the Tenach: The Earth is established; it cannot be moved" (Tehillim 93).
-
plus evolution completely goes against the biblical version of creation, reptiles are created in a differet order etc.
You literally cannot believe in evolution and the bible.
That's not true according to many very learned people.
Now i think you can interpret the earth as millions or even billions years old. That i can accept, even though non of us truely know how long ago it was created.
But doesn't that also "completely goes against the biblical version of creation"
Why can you interpret this issue but other issues are off limits or not open to interpretation?
Explain to me love, hate, envy, emotions, explain to me dna. Dna is incredible, dna organises things better than all the greatest minds can produce.
So what? G-d created many incredible things. Even if He created them gradually and developed them with environmental cues and selection pressures. If DNA was more simplistic, you would accept evolution?
humans brought death into the world, not G-d. Evolution relies on suvival of the fittest and "freak mutations"(even though no mutations have been show to produce a positive development.
Can you provide some kind of scientific basis to suggest that organisms (ie, plant life, animals, etc) did not die until man existed? I'll answer for you - No, you can't. You made that up based on your theological beliefs about the Garden of Eden. I'm not sure exactly what this point had to do with anything I said, but it's important to highlight this - You are not arguing against evolution on scientific grounds, you are arguing against it because you perceive it to be against your religious beliefs. But what if there are many people (or even a few... or even 1!) who don't see it as a contradiction to religious beliefs?
OK i want you to go through the evolution timechart, then the biblical time chart, and show me if reptiles, earth, sun fish etc were all perfectly in order with each other. Good luck with that one.
Like I've already said in this thread, I don't believe that the Bereshith account is giving a "biblical time chart" of evolution or natural processes, since the Bible is not a science textbook and is not supposed to be read as one. I read maaseh bereshith allegorically because these processes obviously happened over long periods of time - You even admit that by citing the length of "yom" as being quite longer than an actual day!
To consider the Bereshith account as a timeline of natural history and a science lesson is IMO a mistake in literalism. Even if that mistake is only known now in light of newly uncovered facts of the past decades and past century. It is still a mistake. And all the moreso we should recognize it as one now.
And so your answer is "oh we cant explain emotuons etc so we will assume they just evolved over millions of years."
Did I say that? I don't even know what you're referring to.
Do you not see, evolution is a religion, a faith, and a cruel one at that.
Cruel? It's cruel that species evolve? Isn't it simply the same thing as God creating it instantaneously except it's stretched out over time? Doesn't it say man is created from the earth in the Bible? So is that cruel that earth was transformed into man? Is that cruel to the earth? I fail to understand your argument.
G-d woul not have such a cruel evil Way of making thing.
LOL, I don't see how evolution of species is a "cruel" way of making them. How do you put a value judgment such as that on the process? Is there some basis to this conviction?
G-d made the bomberdeer beatle perfectly and first time. G-d made the dna perfectly first time.
As i say both are faiths but G-d doesnt make errors, so evolution is wrong biblically and scientically.
The implication of evolution is not that the original species was a mistake. I think that is a problem of your own misinterpretation.
-
Early in the earth's history, self-replicators formed, through a process called abiogensis, eventually leading to the first life. There's a lot of speculation as to how this might have happened. I don't pretend to understand it all.
Around 3.8 billion years ago the Archean era saw the first life,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean#Archean_life
They were single celled organisms.
The single celled organisms formed into colonies, like mats of bacteria or other cells. Like these "stromatolites":
(http://www.crikey-adventure-tours.com/images/stromatelites_01.jpg)
Eukaryotic cells (the kind of cells plants and animals and fungi are made of) evolved in the Proterozoic era.
Before plants and animals went their separate ways, the common ancestor might have looked something like this:
(http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Miscellaneous/Euglena/E_grac17.jpg)
The first real animals and plants formed in the Cambrian era.
-
According to Torah interpretation:
All that existed before the creation was null and void, and Hashem hovered over the water.
Evolution or any scientific explanation or fact does not come in until after that point. Science cannot deal with null-and-void as a reality - it's a scientific absurdity. That reality - null and void, ie nothingness - precedes creation and precedes any natural scientific understanding of the universe or any timeline trying to describe the beginnings of the universe. It is for this reason that to posit God's creating of the earth is not a challenge no matter what details we uncover. God can't be proved or disproved.
-
Notice that Relativity does not say that the universe has no center. It says that we cannot determine where that center is.
Thus it is purely a matter of personal/philosophical choice, and in no way can you say that for the Earth to be at the center, is incorrect, as the savants admit here:
http://www.geocentrism.com/possible.htm
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” (Cosmologist George Ellis)
And our "philosophy" is the Tenach: The Earth is established; it cannot be moved" (Tehillim 93).
LOL! This is the most dishonest thing I've ever seen. You are using some quote from George Ellis to basically try to "justify" your denial of reality. You mistranslate and misunderstand Tehillim, and misinterpret it. The earth does move. And we know it moves. It rotates on its axis and it revolves around the sun.
Ellis's quote does not give you an excuse to pretend any sheker is true.
-
The colonies of cells became specialized, forming simple plants and animals, many different body plans developed in the Cambrian. Some of the first animals would have been sponges and jellyfish. Later there would have been more complex animals.
Before the ancestors of higher animals developed a distinct head, they would have looked something like this lancelet:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Branchiostoma_lanceolatum.jpg/757px-Branchiostoma_lanceolatum.jpg)
-
My rabbi once explained to me that when someone denies reality, they are desecrating God's name. What they are really doing is displaying a disbelief in Torah and disguising it as a defense of their creed. Because they are actually transforming the religion into an irrational "dogma" or "protocol" that must be forced upon all mankind by iron fist and by Cosmic Bully they've turned God into, no matter how unrelated that dogma is to truth, and - importantly - having no relevance to the truth at all in their mind.
If the religion was true, and they really believe it's true, it wouldn't have to be "enforced" taliban style (or karaite style, if you wish), with the interpretation and engagement with facts cut off from the process. He said this specifically about a certain well-known (in rabbinic circles at least) kanoi (extremist) who wrote up a pamphlet calling Rav Yakov Kamenetsky ZT"L an heretic! This author wrote his accusation since Rav Yakov Kamenetsky wrote in his own writings that Rambam was incorrect in some of his astronomical writings - namely that the moon is not physical but spiritual matter - and that this was proven by the moon-landing that Rambam erred in some of those scientific writings. Rav Kamenetsky was not a heretic (chas ve shalom!) and in reality it is this disgraceful writing and accusation against him that reflected apikorsus according to my rabbi. The person would rather deny the evidence of the moon landing and its relevance to the discussion, and to proclaim that "our dogma" has no relevance to known/uncovered fact, and he would rather be "religious" about adherence to the Rambam and what Rambam said, than to actually engage with reality and use rational thought to adhere to Torah. True religion requires rational thought processes for the sincere engaging with the Creator and His creation.
-
Life developed further and there were arthropods, molluscs, early fish, worms, etc. The fish developed jaws from gill arches. Some of the fish developed into sharks and rays, some into ray-finned fishes like bass, trout, goldfish, etc. and some developed into lobe finned fishes like the coelocanth. One group of lobe-fins developed into amphibians. Some of those amphibians developed into reptiles. Reptiles split into several different groups, like turtles, dinosaurs, mammals, etc. Some dinosaurs developed into birds.
Some mammals, which started out as small and shrew-like, developed into primates, some primates developed into ape-like creatures, some of those developed into hominids.
I've focused mostly on the path that led to humans, but that's only a very, very small part of the whole evolution picture. There is an amazing diversity of life on earth. Think of it as a branching tree, or a fractal.
-
Ruby, you have a lot more patience than I do. I give you a lot of credit. There are experts who can elaborate on these things better than I can (and I assume better than you can too, since you said you didn't know that much about it) - IMO it's really laziness that motivates people "demanding explanation " of evolution or certain aspects of it as if we're having an official debate about it - why don't they look up the relevant sources and read about it? Or why haven't they done so up to this point? Is that different from forcing rubystars to look it up and then copy and paste information for them?
-
Some of it I'm pulling from memory, some of it I'm looking up to make sure I don't re-tell it wrong. Obviously, especially in the last post, I've simplified things a lot.
Part of the problem we face is that people have no idea what evolution is, or what it means, or how it works. They think it's a bunch of random mutations that somehow magically produces a result. That's not even close to the truth, but that's what they think evolution is. So how could we ever expect them to adopt something that ridiculous? It's not that they're less intelligent it's just that they are rejecting what they think evolution is.
For example, Hovind used to use an example saying that "evolution says humans evolved from rocks". People believed that's what evolution says, because they don't know any better. Of course that's ridiculous, and people would be stupid to accept "evolution" if that was what evolution really was. I think that's why people say evolution is stupid, because whatever they've been told about it does sound stupid.
One very bad thing though, once their minds are closed shut, often they're not willing to even learn that what they picture in their minds is not what evolution is even about. They're not willing to learn what it really is, and weigh it on its merits.
-
"The Big Bang theory is simply preposterous.This is not chochmah, but rather, it is shtus"! (Rav Shimon Schwab, "Rav Schwab on Prayer", Artscroll 2001, page 444).
The Big Bang theory cannot be squared with the Breishis account. According to the Torah, all the elements were made together, the Earth was formed before the stars, plants were formed before the sun, birds were created before reptiles, and the Sun, Moon and stars were formed on the Fourth Day, after the Earth.
But according to the Big Bang theory, the elements beyond hydrogen and helium were formed after millions of years, the Earth was formed long after the stars, plants evolved after the Sun, birds evolved from reptiles, and the Sun was formed before the Earth!
The Big Bang theory was originally conceived out of a desire to have a godless naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. A modified view has it that when the explosive event happened, it was directed by G-d. This is called theistic evolution and is an attempt to compromise the Torah with vast-age evolutionary theories, and is currently in vogue in some Orthodox circles.
All the many stars appeared suddenly and supernaturally in space. Scripture does not imply an explosion, which would have propelled all matter radially from its center, and by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, could not have acquired the curving rotations and orbits we see everywhere in the cosmos. Worse, the Big Bang theory blatantly contradicts Newton's Law's of Motion and the Laws of Thermodynamics that state that with the passing of time there is an increase in entropy (disorder): there is a deterioration as systems go from order to disorder.
The Big Bang model requires belief in such arcane notions as "dark matter", "dark energy", "curved space", "neutron stars", "black holes", "superluminal jets", and "variously flavoured neutrinos", all theoretical entities that were invented in order to save the model from contradicting observations, and that have never been observed or photographed. It is intellectually dishonest to conjure up the existence of unobservable entities in order to save a theory that observation would otherwise disprove.
(http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/thumb/7/78/Big-bang-never-happened.jpg/256px-Big-bang-never-happened.jpg)
At the time of Creation "He spoke and it was; He commanded and it stood firm" (Tehillim 33)! The astronomical data once claimed to be evidence for the Big Bang theory, such as the Redshift and the Comic Background Radiation, instead support a rapid fully formed Geocentric creation that took place only thousands of years ago!
-
If understood correctly evolution might describe how Gd created man.
Can a tornedo hitting a garbage dumpster create a Boeing 747 airplane?
-
"The Big Bang theory is simply preposterous.This is not chochmah, but rather, it is shtus"! (Rav Shimon Schwab, "Rav Schwab on Prayer", Artscroll 2001, page 444).
The Big Bang theory cannot be squared with the Breishis account.
lol. Now you're getting yourself confused. Earlier in this thread you cited Gerald Shroeder, the author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" as a legitimate "man daamar" - You pointed to his view as a reconciliation of old and new world perspective for those who can't accept the denial of science as a point of view.
:::D
Do you even believe the stuff you write?
-
As can be seen from your postings, this subject is a major mental stumbling block for many.
They have been brought up on their mother's milk that the universe is billions of years old and that the Earth goes round the Sun.
When they become chozer b'teshuvah, they are faced with a cognitive dissonance crisis over the Torah's dating & cosmology. So much of a crisis, that for some there's a risk of a mental breakdown and even relinquishing Judaism as a result.
Aish HaTorah identified this, and put Schroeder to work to devise a satisfactory reconciliation, for their "Discovery Program".
And Schroeder did a good job, invoking Relativity, that the universe can be both 16 billion years old and 6000 years old, as well as both Heliocentric & Geocentric, all at the same time: thus, everyone's happy.
As I wrote, Schroeder's idea is good for those for whom a reconciliation is a major issue of emunah.
I personally don't need a reconciliation, as I am an Absolutist, not a Relativist: there is an aether, and the Earth is stationary wrt it, as shown by the zero-velocity MM experiments, and all the others. As far as I am concerned the universe is 6000 years old, preceded by Six Days of 24 hours, as shown by the 18 evidences I presented before viz: the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the dearth of human records and artifacts older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the abiogenic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (tree-ring dating), pleochroic haloes etc.
(http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldCover.jpg)
(http://www.creationmoments.net/catalog/images/5840-3.jpg)
It's a good feeling that whether Relativist or Absolutist, a literal interpretation of our Torah is fully supported. This seems to be something that you cannot tolerate and irks you! Since Rav Kahane himself was a firm believer in a 6000 year old universe, if you are to be honest and consisitent with yourself, you should change your "Kahane-Was-Right BT" monica!
-
As can be seen from your postings, this subject is a major mental stumbling block for many.
They have been brought up on their mother's milk that the universe is billions of years old and that the Earth goes round the Sun.
When they become chozer b'teshuvah, they are faced with a cognitive dissonance crisis over the Torah's dating & cosmology. So much of a crisis, that for some there's a risk of a mental breakdown and even relinquishing Judaism as a result.
I think the risk of mental breakdown and relinquishing of Judaism is with you. That is why you fight so hard on the views I'm presenting even though they are acceptable within Jewish belief. You are very threatened that science might have something valuable to say because perhaps you were always taught (incorrectly) that "everything other than Judaism is sheker." But in reality, you know that science uncovers some truths about the universe and it scares you because you probably mistakenly think that science and all other fields of wisdom or thought contradict Torah and therefore must be avoided and shunned. So if science does have some truth to tell the world, but science is against Torah according to your rabbis, HOW CAN THAT BE!? So you fight science. And you take a lazy route in understanding Chumash. But again, this was a mistaken teaching that you were never weaned from even though men are supposed to grow up and mature and get passed the cheder level of understanding. Unfortunately you still think that no other fields of wisdom can coincide with Torah, including a field that pursues the truth through demonstration of fact. Thus you naturally feel repelled by truth-seeking endeavors because implicitly you assume that facts contradict Torah. But if you fall into the above-described apikorsus of denying that truth has any relevance to Torah, it is dangerous for your soul and a major problem. So be wary.
I never had Judaism. I came to practice it later on in life and learning about these issues was part of that process. I go where the evidence leads me. Views I've formulated through study and exploration over time are ones which many great rabbis, including ones I am close with, assert are acceptable within Jewish faith - so why should I assume otherwise just because wonga doesn't like my view, or considers it kefira, or would rather cling to something infantile because my beliefs are complex and require effort? I'm a Jew regardless, but of course it would be a major problem if facts contradicted Judaism or Torah. How could that not be a problem? Would anyone feel happy about that or that that's not a problem? However, I'm perfectly fine struggling with a problem if it exists (of course, that's not a real problem in the general sense - the facts agree with Torah). And there are plenty of issues in life - personal problems, challenges, emunah, etc - to struggle with as a life-time effort and life-time project to know G-d. But I am not at risk of any mental diseases or illnesses, thank G-d.
Aish HaTorah identified this, and put Schroeder to work to devise a satisfactory reconciliation, for their "Discovery Program".
And Schroeder did a good job, invoking Relativity, that the universe can be both 16 billion years old and 6000 years old, as well as both Heliocentric & Geocentric, all at the same time: thus, everyone's happy.
As I wrote, Schroeder's idea is good for those for whom a reconciliation is a major issue of emunah.
So you are basically saying it's ok to lie to people to make them frum. How admirable... ::)
Schroeder does not consider his work a "lie for nebuchs" and he believes in it, as do a lot of people. Even some from your neck of the woods who were born "absolutists." (what a ridiculous term to describe yourself).
I personally don't need a reconciliation, as I am an Absolutist, not a Relativist: there is an aether, and the Earth is stationary wrt it, as shown by the zero-velocity MM experiments, and all the others. As far as I am concerned the universe is 6000 years old, preceded by Six Days of 24 hours,
Chazal never said this. So why do you have to insist on it? Well, I simply don't. I still think it's funny the way you constantly harp on it, though.
as shown by the 18 evidences I presented before viz: the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the dearth of human records and artifacts older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the abiogenic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (tree-ring dating), pleochroic haloes etc.
In other words you lie to yourself because you are uncomfortable in engaging reality and facts. You are afraid of what might happen. You are afraid you might drop Judaism (G-d forbid!)
Please do not stop practicing Judaism, wonga.
Btw, the part I put in bold is a real laugher.
It's a good feeling that whether Relativist or Absolutist, a literal interpretation of our Torah is full supported. This seems to be something that you cannot tolerate and irks you!
Firstly, I don't know what you mean by these terms relativist/absolutist.
Secondly, depending on what you mean by literal (and for the purposes of this discussion all along I've been basically considering that term to mean that maaseh bereshith are a literal accounting describing the manner in which G-d created the world in the sense that it's factual checklist of every event and a scientifically described way and order in which it happened with literal descriptions and literal time scale etc) - but maaseh bereshith are described as not literal by chazal so why does it make sense to insist on that? anyway.... - by this meaning of literal, the facts contradict the literal account. By this definition of literal you mistakenly date the earth/universe as 6000 years old - and thus the facts contradict it. The facts contradict a 6000 year old world. So that doesn't irk me; I simply reject your interpretation (and your science) and some of your theological convictions which I also feel are baseless. And consequently, I have a different approach to these subjects that I know to be wiser, more accurate, and more truthful. I am quite confident in that much.
Since Rav Kahane himself was a firm believer in a 6000 year old universe, if you are to be honest and consisitent with yourself, you should change your "Kahane-was-righ" monica!
I never saw him writing or speaking about that (Please quote it if you have something!), but even if he did, I simply disagree in light of my own knowledge. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a rabbi, even one you consider great and one whom you "follow." The name "Kahane-was-right" doesn't mean Rabbi Kahane is my "chassidic rebbe" or a perfect godlike figure I must imitate like a robot.
Rabbi Kahane spoke often about the fact that a person doesn't need to go and ask a Rav for every single thing if he can figure out the subject for himself and delve into it, he can determine the halacha - and rabbis certainly can do this. He himself certainly did this on a host of issues. He said that it's only when one feels they do not know and cannot figure out the issue that they then ask their Rav - this was how he described his relationship with Rav M. Eliyahu. If that is how he felt about halachic matters, how much moreso with regard to hashkafic matters would Rabbi Kahane encourage me to delve into the matter and come to an understanding to the best of my abilities! Of course, since I'm not a rabbi myself, I've had help... With other rabbis! If that's not acceptable to you, you have major problems buddy.
-
I think another thing that scares people is the concept of deep time. Human beings can sort of understand 6000 years. They have a general concept of how long a century is, and then they say there are 60 of those centuries in the past. This is something that's easy for them to grasp and visualize. 13 billion years of the universe's age is such an incredibly vast, incredibly long amount of time, much of it without any humans at all. It's such a long amount of time that the human mind can't really comprehend it. I think this can be literally terrifying to some people, and so they want to cling to what's comfortable, something they can understand.
-
What's wrong with rating that evolution might be a description of how Gd made species?
-
Putting words in our mouths now?
I have yet to hear a rebuttal to evolution or something like that as a description of Gd's hand in creating His divine creatures.
I have not seen any proof of anything other than talking about a theory which has many questions.
Humans are not the product of random mutations. Believing this degrades the human being to the level of a common animal. If you really want to believe you are a animal, you can justify any immoral act. Humans have so much to be grateful for, why would anyone want to try to say we are just a random mutation. That is criminal in my mind. To hate Hashems most brilliant creature that much as to bring him down to the level of a slug or protoplasm? That is just the worst thing that people can do.
I will bow out of this discussion because it pains me to think people actually believe this stuff. You are entitled to continue bickering about how your mother and father were baboons and your sister was an ape, but I know my family is descended from the divine light of creation...
-
Scientists have built a very compelling case for evolution over the years... Museums are filled with fossils that show the evolutionary changes in various creatures over time... Honestly some accommodation has to be made for this evidence besides plainly ignoring it... I personally believe whatever the process G-ds hand was behind it.
-
The fallacy of Radiometric dating and the unwarranted infering of vast ages,is based on the arbitrary assumption that none of the daughter elements were present at formation,viz. the patent and gross inaccuracy of the Uranium/Lead,Rubidium/Strontium,and Potassium/Argon methods.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/geiger_counter.jpg)
Different methods giving ages of 14m, 30m, 95m and 750 million years for the same piece of rock.The unreliability of Carbon 14 is renowned eg.a freshly killed seal,when dated by the method showed that it had died `1300 years ago'!
-
Each dating method has a different range of time for which it is valid. Also it might depend on what kind of material is being dated.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm
-
One issue with carbon or other elemental dating methods is that it ASSUMES that the rate of decay is CONSTANT. But we cannot know if the rate of decay was CONSTANT before humanity. Also according to Torah the laws of nature changed after the Flood of Noach. Is it a known fact that these CONSTANTS have NEVER changed?
-
I think another thing that scares people is the concept of deep time. Human beings can sort of understand 6000 years. They have a general concept of how long a century is, and then they say there are 60 of those centuries in the past. This is something that's easy for them to grasp and visualize. 13 billion years of the universe's age is such an incredibly vast, incredibly long amount of time, much of it without any humans at all. It's such a long amount of time that the human mind can't really comprehend it. I think this can be literally terrifying to some people, and so they want to cling to what's comfortable, something they can understand.
Very interesting.
I draw a parallel. Just as earth and the life on earth is a tiny miniscule blip on a gigantic vast unintelligibly large universe - so to the window of human existence on earth is but a small drop in the ocean of time that earth has existed! Nonetheless, despite all that, (and it should give us pause and inspire humility) we are still nonetheless very important and the main reason for creation.
-
One issue with carbon or other elemental dating methods is that it ASSUMES that the rate of decay is CONSTANT.
There's no reason to think otherwise. The elements exhibit a characteristic rate of decay that can be determined and calculated with mathematical equation. You are basically saying, since the dating contradicts what I feel to be the age of the world, therefore it must be that that rate was somehow different at one point (for what reason? What was the rate? How did it change?). But scientists don't have any reason to believe the rate was different. Why should they deny their own findings because of your theological belief about the age of the world?
And if God made things appear that way, then that is essentially the way it is, conspiracy theories aside.
Likewise, when food is thought to be kosher based on halacha and one eats it, if objectively it really wasn't kosher because of some unknown issue that was impossible for this person to discern, he is not accountable for a sin in eating that food. For all intents and purposes it was kosher (given he went through the appropriate halachic requirements to determine its kashrut). Similarly, if the world appears by all scientific investigation to be old, then we can consider it old. If there was some unknown reason why all of our scientific methods are flawed even though we can't pinpoint why, and there is no reason for us to believe they are wrong, we are not accountable. God made things appear that way, didn't He? So why would He deceive us (that's rhetorical - I've heard very lame answers to that question) and hold us accountable to deny our senses and deny the facts as we can discern them?
-
I think another thing that scares people is the concept of deep time. Human beings can sort of understand 6000 years. They have a general concept of how long a century is, and then they say there are 60 of those centuries in the past. This is something that's easy for them to grasp and visualize. 13 billion years of the universe's age is such an incredibly vast, incredibly long amount of time, much of it without any humans at all. It's such a long amount of time that the human mind can't really comprehend it. I think this can be literally terrifying to some people, and so they want to cling to what's comfortable, something they can understand.
Very interesting.
I draw a parallel. Just as earth and the life on earth is a tiny miniscule blip on a gigantic vast unintelligibly large universe - so to the window of human existence on earth is but a small drop in the ocean of time that earth has existed! Nonetheless, despite all that, (and it should give us pause and inspire humility) we are still nonetheless very important and the main reason for creation.
I'll just add one more thing and I hope it's not blasphemous...this universe is hardly even a blip to Hashem.
and one more thing...the beginning of time to the end of time barely comes close to the time it takes for Hashem to "blink His eye".
-
Re: "the beginning of time to the end of time barely comes close to the time it takes for Hashem to "blink His eye". "
Do you think that Ha'Shem wears glasses?
Only reason I ask is because so many people, which He created, have to wear glasses for vision correction.
Or...were we all Created with perfect vision and eyesight, but degenerated and deteriorated somewhere along the line?
-
Scientists have built a very compelling case for evolution over the years... Museums are filled with fossils that show the evolutionary changes in various creatures over time... Honestly some accommodation has to be made for this evidence besides plainly ignoring it... I personally believe whatever the process G-ds hand was behind it.
thats not evidence, fossils are just bones in the ground...
-
I have 20/15 vision. So I suppose Gd has 20/infinity physically and time focusing. :P
Re: "the beginning of time to the end of time barely comes close to the time it takes for Hashem to "blink His eye". "
Do you think that Ha'Shem wears glasses?
Only reason I ask is because so many people, which He created, have to wear glasses for vision correction.
Or...were we all Created with perfect vision and eyesight, but degenerated and deteriorated somewhere along the line?
-
Scientists have built a very compelling case for evolution over the years... Museums are filled with fossils that show the evolutionary changes in various creatures over time... Honestly some accommodation has to be made for this evidence besides plainly ignoring it... I personally believe whatever the process G-ds hand was behind it.
thats not evidence, fossils are just bones in the ground...
Fossils are fossils and bones are bones... They have found enough of both to paint a very compelling case for evolution...