JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tag-MehirTzedek on February 16, 2013, 10:46:14 PM
-
I was literally thinking about this when I read Rambam's More Nevuchim today about how G-D made everything to function and with a purpose (then I thought about the appendix and that it is said to be useless by some today) . Right now I stumbled upon this (forgetting what I thought earlier) and it just was on the aol headers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/appendix-evolved-over-30-times_n_2685499.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D271480
-
no such thing as evolution
-
There are certain organs that are less essential than others. People can live just fine without an appendix, or tonsils. However, that doesn't mean that these organs are necessarily useless. It just means they're not as important as the heart or the liver or the brain.
-
I believe in evolution, but I believe it is by design of G-d, and we do not know his time.
Maybe these organs were more important in a earlier time. For example the tonsils, you're more likely to get sick more often. Therefore building immunity, and a fever kills viruses etc.
P.s. I just made that up.
-
no such thing as evolution
Prove it!
-
The pipe organ certainly did evolve...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Pipe.organ.console.arp.jpg)
(http://www.nationalshrine.com/atf/cf/%7BB0534716-4524-407D-A065-B68C4BFCB4BE%7D/Crypt%20Church%20Organ.JPG)
And the question of evolution is so sad. It doesn't even affect emmunah in Hashem, our G-d, in the least. While the secular atheists will think they are weakening our faith, it amuses me to what lengths they go to try to prove that humans are the same as monkeys.
I believe Hashem most definately made the entire creation for the purpose of humanity. HUmans are the image of G-d, and we have the potential to rule the world in a manner in harmony with the will of the creator. It does not matter in the least what went into creating us. The Torah provides the allegory for the reason of creation, and it is never to be seen as a biology or science text. Judaism never took everything which is written literally, as is evidenced by the confusion caused by the 'eye for eye' passage in Mishpatim which is used by the atheists to denigrate our system as vindictive and cruel.
The Torah clearly establishes an evolutionary creation, starting with the materials used to create life (water and air (heaven and earth)) and vegetative and animal life, and finally the human being. Torah teaches that the final creation was the first in Hashems thoughts when he decided to establish this reality we live in today (and Jews sing it every Friday night in Lecha Dodi). I do not believe every so-called scientific advancement announced in the media today. Science is not as stable as it appears and what are 'facts' today will be 'fallacies' tomorrow. When you get old enough you realize that what they taught you in High School about science is usually false within 20 years, and new theories and evidence are created. Science is like any other tool in the hands of mankind, it can be use for good and it can be used, more often, for bad.
So my advice to everyone is to read up on the latest theories, but always be skeptical before you accept a theory. It is the way I keep my faith strong...
See also : http://www.meaningfullife.com/torah/parsha/bereishit/bereishit/The_Creation_of_Light.php
“What is final in deed is first in thought”
from the Lecha Dodi prayer
A concept is born in its conceiver's mind. Perhaps is it the mind of an architect, or of an artist, scientist, inventor, writer - any creative mind will do. The hands that are attached to this mind are fairly itching to put pen to paper, lathe to wood and metal, color to canvass. The mind's eye is already envisioning segments of the edifice, parts of the machine, chapters of the book, experiments to test the theory. But wait, it tells itself, aren't we sort of jumping ahead of ourselves? The concept, let's get back to the concept. Is it clear? Has it come into focus yet? The details can wait - first we must define what it is we wish to create. What exactly is this invention going to do? What is the point of the theory? What is the book, painting or sculpture going to express? What is the function and/or aesthetic message of the structure?
Only after the concept has crystallized in his mind, does the artist or engineer get to work. Then, as the scaffolding rises about the developing edifice, as the canvas fills and the experiments accumulate and proliferate, the concept somewhat recedes, its clarity somewhat dims. Now there are sentences to assemble, problems to solve, angles to hone. Now the focus must shift from the concept as a whole to its component parts. True, the creator is guided throughout by his original vision; but what is at the fore of his mind is the vision as it applies to the particular task at hand, rather than the transcendent vision it was at the time of its conception.
But when the last bolt is tightened, or the final cornice or door-handle fitted into place; when the last brush-stroke is satisfactorily executed or the last revision is made to the manuscript or theorem - the concept re-erupts in all its radiance and purity. This is what was meant, this is what the sleepless nights and endless days were all about. This is what preceded all, this is what receded from view while the project developed, and this is what the final culminating detail again brought to light.
What is final in deed is first in thought.
-
That's what it comes down to. There still isn't a shred of evidence that's any more credible than Hussein Osama's birth certificate. I say it is much harder for me to believe what dictatorial elitists believe (referring to his grandfather) and what liberal commies want to prove, then what G-d says.
What do you mean what G-D says? Where does G-D rule this out? and where does he say specifically that it MUST be taken literally (the Creation story). at least the Rabbanim (Rabbis) of the Talmudh did not take the events of Breishit to be literal.
-
Days can be ages, Adam, even though I don't believe so, could have been the first moral man without contradicting G-d. But when G-d says he made the world and everything in it himself, this I take him at his word for. There's no religious alternative to "G-d did".
We believe G-D does everything. Including giving us food (for example) or giving us air to breath. That does not mean 1 should hold their breath and say, noo G-D will give me to breath. Or not get food for oneself saying G-D will supply it. G-D does supply it precisely by one going out and doing what they need to do (for example work, then get $ and go to store and buy the food and then eat)
-
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 right 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).
-
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 right 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).
Interesting! Do you have anything to back that up? I don't have a problem with G-d saying "bam " there you go. But I also believe that G-d may have created us as separate beings, thus leading us to the middle east, creating modern humans and giving the Torah!
-
Obviously that is not meant to be taken literally. G-d gets the accomplishment whether he spoon feeds us or shows us how to catch duck, so there is no relevance if it was taken literally. G-d creating the world is the accomplishment in of itself, because it makes him a active creative force. Not a stoic one that left random molecules up to chance, but an intelligent designer who both chose and made them in that exact manner, and to be that exact thing.
If it was chance that random atoms got together to create the universe, then that's one hell f a perfect accident! Does that prove evolution wrong? In my opinion it proves that Gd exists, created everything on purpose and created us in a scientific spiritual magical way. Just because apes and humans might have originated from a common source doesn't disprove Gd. It only proves that if we physically evolved this way, Gd was quite clever in teaching something about us that we started like dust. After all all living things originated from a single atom that formed a complex amino acid which developed into an organism with no nucleus but branched out into single celled alge that later became the plants and trees and the otherside became mitochondria of other cells and the cells all joined to become sea animals and have branched out to become all types of animals including Homo sapiens.
It's scientific logical and extraordinarily Gdly. To me Gd creating the physical world like this is a much more a miracle than a Gd that simply uses a magic "finger".
Does evolution of the physical form of man explain how we ended up with a soul and dominion over the world and the ability to have free will? No. Only that bible can explain it logically in the first books of genesis. It's the bible Gd gave to us that explains why we are different from animals. It gives a logical explanation of morality and how we have evolved especially Jews.
-
If anyone believes that from a one-celled organism you can end up with a human being, I've got the name of a mental institution that I can recommend to you.
And how interesting that eyes and ears (2 each yet!) can just develop on their own. And on its own, it can figure out that it needs eye lids and eye lashes and a pupil and opens and closes, as well as eye brows. Not to mention a retina that connects to the brain, as well as vitreous to bathe the eye with nutrients in utero. Imagine that!
Anyone who would believe this would believe that, if they washed up on a desert island in the Pacific and saw a watch in the sand, they would believe that metal just happened to also wash up on the island and combine itself into a watch with moving parts.
-
The process of evolution itself was created by G_D himself.
-
The process of evolution itself was created by G_D himself.
no such thing as evolution, it's a fairy tale created by darwin, who was not a scientist, but a failed divinity student. darwin himself admitted there is zero evidence of evolution, and 200 years later there is still zero evidence of evolution. it's a myth.
-
If anyone believes that from a one-celled organism you can end up with a human being, I've got the name of a mental institution that I can recommend to you.
Do you know how babies are formed? You think a baby is made by taking different mud and other substances and putting them together? NO it is a 1 cell that combines with an egg that produces a human being. Soo why is that not problematic for you then? Or maybe you do not agree to that process being true?
-
The process of evolution itself was created by G_D himself.
exactly
-
no such thing as evolution, it's a fairy tale created by darwin, who was not a scientist, but a failed divinity student. darwin himself admitted there is zero evidence of evolution, and 200 years later there is still zero evidence of evolution. it's a myth.
Prove it!!! This isn't proof..this is just opinion. Prove that evolution is a myth.
-
I believe in evolution, but I believe it is by design of G-d, and we do not know his time.
Maybe these organs were more important in a earlier time. For example the tonsils, you're more likely to get sick more often. Therefore building immunity, and a fever kills viruses etc.
P.s. I just made that up.
Exactly, that is the whole reason we have vestigial organs.
-
Do you know how babies are formed? You think a baby is made by taking different mud and other substances and putting them together? NO it is a 1 cell that combines with an egg that produces a human being. Soo why is that not problematic for you then? Or maybe you do not agree to that process being true?
Precisely!!! In fact..it starts out with two half cells that combine into one cell which then multiplies and then specializes into different body parts and organs. Someone who has no training in science/medicine, has no say on whether or not evolution existed or didn't exist. And those who are devoid in their belief in a master Creator, has no say on religion or morality!
-
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 right 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).
thing is...
BOOM! (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/human-evolution-tree.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
-
Thought I had to post this for good laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A
-
Years ago evolutionists claimed that the body was replete with useless organs, vestiges of some mythical prehistoric existence. The list ran to over 150 organs: the caudal musculature, the thymus gland, the external ear muscles, the 3rd molar, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, coccyx bone, knee menisci, tonsils, pituitary gland, appendix etc.
The long-slandered appendix is now known to be an important part of the GALT (Gut Associated Lymphoidal Tissue) with an important immunological function and is not to be casually removed.
"He would be a rash man indeed who would now say that any part of the body is useless!" (Professor Goodrich, Oxford).
(http://static.lulu.com/browse/product_thumbnail.php?productId=20135230&resolution=320)
-
except people do get their appendixes removed and casually go on with their lives afterwards.
-
the appendix is useful until it is about to burst...then you remove and not worry about replacing it. The same is true of tonsils and third molars. But if they don't have to be removed, let them be. I think that's the important point.
-
How do we refute the proofs of the Evolutionists? We need refute nothing, for they have produced not a single proof. ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraph 24.
-
Don't know how this evolved to the topic of evolution (actually looking back I do) I see Luke making his post stating it doesn't exist. But anyway my point in making this thread is and was to show that everything that G-D made is useful even if some time ago their were those who did not see it that way. That is the message I am trying to bring forth. Soo there you go.
-
Within the last decade, research has shown that this lymphatic tissue encourages the growth of some kinds of beneficial gut bacteria. What's more, careful anatomical study of other mammals has revealed that species as diverse as beavers, koalas, and porcupines also have a structure jutting off of their guts in exactly the same place as our appendix—in other words, the feature is much more common among mammals than once thought.
Tonsils too work as the forefront guards of body and they are the first to detect, face, and defend against the infection. In this process they get red and swollen but before that they inform through brain to all other requisite body parts to prepare the suitable anti bodies and fight coordinately against the spreading incoming infection. So without the tonsils the front guard post gets vacated and others are left to fight it out in somewhat haphazard manner.
-
When I read genesis, I see 'the big bang', creation of the planets in our solar system, water and land, .....and then humans.
Its very general, but isn't that just what scientists say? Same as science.
Where does it say that humans just popped out of thin air?
Why can't we evolve?
Think evolve as adapt.
We do that right now.
Negros in the jungles are completely black. They move to the colder United States, they turn brown.
I was born overseas. When I came here I had to adapt to a new language and a new weather climate.
-
When I read genesis, I see 'the big bang', creation of the planets in our solar system, water and land, .....and then humans.
Its very general, but isn't that just what scientists say? Same as science.
Where does it say that humans just popped out of thin air?
Why can't we evolve?
Think evolve as adapt.
We do that right now.
Negros in the jungles are completely black. They move to the colder United States, they turn brown.
I was born overseas. When I came here I had to adapt to a new language and a new weather climate.
Exactly! I don't know if this is kosher or not... If you take a Cabernet Franc and cross it with a Concord grape, you get a grape that is closer in taste to a Cabernet, but is more resistant to cold weather etc.
-
Exactly! I don't know if this is kosher or not... If you take a Cabernet Franc and cross it with a Concord grape, you get a grape that is closer in taste to a Cabernet, but is more resistant to cold weather etc.
Adaptation and Evolution are two different topics though. Evolution involves one species evolving into another species. Adaptation only occur within one species...
-
Do you know how babies are formed? You think a baby is made by taking different mud and other substances and putting them together? NO it is a 1 cell that combines with an egg that produces a human being. Soo why is that not problematic for you then? Or maybe you do not agree to that process being true?
Sorry, I just don't see how human reproduction can be compared to having a one-celled organism in the primordial soup, as it were, on its own, with growth and with time, turning into a human being.
-
Adaptation and Evolution are two different topics though. Evolution involves one species evolving into another species. Adaptation only occur within one species...
ok where does it say you are not allowed to evolve?
-
the appendix is useful until it is about to burst...then you remove and not worry about replacing it. The same is true of tonsils and third molars. But if they don't have to be removed, let them be. I think that's the important point.
True... The fact that people have been having things like this that have become problematic removed for years and hardly notice a difference shows that they really don't do all that much towards keeping people alive.
-
How do we refute the proofs of the Evolutionists? We need refute nothing, for they have produced not a single proof. ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraph 24.
That's not proof. That's an opinion.
-
"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering. The improbability, even if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15. Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered. To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions. The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit. This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order. The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation. But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye. Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick." --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth! pp.10-12
-
I never found any answers in my quest to find where it says that we are not allowed to evolve.
-
"Evolution has no witnesses, for nothing of the kind has transpired in the memory of Mankind; and the evidence of the fossils contradicts it sharply. Creation, however, has witnesses, whose testimony is supported by historic tradition of the utmost reliability...If miracles of nature are to be ascribed to G-d, why protract these miracles over aeons of time instead of the six days of Creation? Once they [the Evolutionists] admit the presence of the Lving G-d, the entire structure of Evolution topples over. Their chief purpose in manufacturing this theory was to avoid the necessity of admitting the presence of G-d." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraphs 29-30
-
Precisely proof that Gd exists and that evolution was How He created our dominion. On the seventh day was rest. Therefore no more evolution.
"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering. The improbability, even if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15. Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered. To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions. The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit. This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order. The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation. But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye. Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick." --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth! pp.10-12
-
"What about the fossils which the Evolutionists claim to be the remains of prehistoric men?....There are none, whatsoever. Despite the sensational reports, which perennially crop up in the press, of new discoveries here and there, they have not found a single 'missing link' fossil. They are either 1) outright apes, or 2) ordinary contemporary-type humans or 3) deliberate hoaxes. The fossil 'primate' Proconsul Africanus, which had been described as a progenitor of both apes and humans, was finally declared, at a London meeting of the Congress of Zoology (Time Magazine, 7/28/58), to be nothing more than an ape. Thus, a long-established fable was finally demolished, after it had served for years as one of the 'proofs' of Evolution. The entire proof had been based on a few bones, but no complete skeleton had been found. But when the Proconsul's head and forearm were finally discovered, they revealed that the fossil was definitely that of an ape. Another case: The Neanderthal Man, a half-century established museum exhibit of a stooped; ape-like man, was at the same London conference revealed to be nothing more than a modern-type man (Time, ibid.) The 'bent-kneed, stooped' posture, which had hitherto been construed as an ape-like stance, was finally declared to be nothing else than the effects of age and arthritis. Thus, any old man today, stooped by arthritis and by the weight of his years, could have been pointed out by the Evolutionists as a missing-link; especially if he was posing naked, with a stone axe in his hand, and with a year's growth of hair and beard to make him more authentic. This, then, is what is finally revealed after fifty years of citing these fossils as proofs." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.17-18
-
Btw, I love this explanation of how our universe was not just a happy accident. It simply proves Gd's existence. However, it doesn't disprove that evolution might have been one of Gd's methods of creating the universe before the seventh day of creation.
"The mathematical improbability of accidental Evolution is staggering. The improbability, even if the possibility could exist, that a single cell could by chance develop into an ant, is of astronomical dimensions....Try to make a booklet from 15 loose sheets numbered one to 15. Shuffle the sheets, and see what chances there are that they will fall upon each other in numerical order....The probability is one chance in 1,307,700,000,000....Suppose that your book has not 15, but one hundred loose pages, numbered. To shuffle them by accident, so that they will fall into numerical order, would be one chance in billions x billions x billions. The accidental development of one cell into an ant's leg requires hundreds of 1) various-sized and 2) various-shaped cells of 3) various materials, all precision-made and 4) all precisely positioned; and all must be 5) united by structure and by nerve and muscle connection to function as a unit. This is equivalent to thousands of numbered pages which must fall in precise numerical order. The improbability of such an accidental arrangement defies mathematical calculation. But even this is but nothing compared to the human eye, which is immensely more complicated....It is easier to believe that a mountain, after millions of earthquakes, eruptions and hurricanes was finally shaped by accidenet into a tall skyscraper building with all details of steel framework, masonry, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, hardware, fixtures, furniture and communication---than to believe that a one-cell algae developed into an eye. Compared to the eye, the building is as uncomplicated as a brick." --Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth! pp.10-12
-
Again, this is just an opinion. If I were to say, Gd forbid, that Gd doesn't exist and that things happened accidentally to create evolution and us..then the Rabbi would be 1000% correct. But in my opinion, couldn't evolution be a method of how Gd came to create Man with a soul as well as all type of living things? Right now, I think so. Does it matter? No. Does it refute the Bible? No. Why? Because the Bible is not a science book. It's a book on how to live morally and a history book and some things should be taken literally and other things not literally. Which things? The Talmud/Oral Torah is a good place to start.
"Evolution has no witnesses, for nothing of the kind has transpired in the memory of Mankind; and the evidence of the fossils contradicts it sharply. Creation, however, has witnesses, whose testimony is supported by historic tradition of the utmost reliability...If miracles of nature are to be ascribed to G-d, why protract these miracles over aeons of time instead of the six days of Creation? Once they [the Evolutionists] admit the presence of the Lving G-d, the entire structure of Evolution topples over. Their chief purpose in manufacturing this theory was to avoid the necessity of admitting the presence of G-d." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, paragraphs 29-30
-
And can you explain why the Mitochodria and Chloroplasts resemble prokaryotic cells? There was a method to Gd's madness on how He created us. Yes, Man and all living things were created from dust with His breath. That is what we are made out of. But to imagine a god that looks like a man with a mouth with oxygen to breath in our lungs, is idolatry. Therefore, what we read from Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. That perhaps dust means complex proteins and molecules and breath means electricity, heat, volcanic eruptions (all belonging to Gd's "fingers"). From there, perhaps that's where Gd began molding us into His "image". And at this time, the best theory that explains the HOW is evolution. It doesn't contradict anything and the claim you make that it does, shows your ignorance on the topic. Without Gd's science and accepting its yolk, religion alone will do nothing but relying on miracles. Take the time to learn about it open mindedly, and you will notice how wonderous Gd works. Otherwise, put the duct tape over your eyes and mouth and shut up.
"What about the fossils which the Evolutionists claim to be the remains of prehistoric men?....There are none, whatsoever. Despite the sensational reports, which perennially crop up in the press, of new discoveries here and there, they have not found a single 'missing link' fossil. They are either 1) outright apes, or 2) ordinary contemporary-type humans or 3) deliberate hoaxes. The fossil 'primate' Proconsul Africanus, which had been described as a progenitor of both apes and humans, was finally declared, at a London meeting of the Congress of Zoology (Time Magazine, 7/28/58), to be nothing more than an ape. Thus, a long-established fable was finally demolished, after it had served for years as one of the 'proofs' of Evolution. The entire proof had been based on a few bones, but no complete skeleton had been found. But when the Proconsul's head and forearm were finally discovered, they revealed that the fossil was definitely that of an ape. Another case: The Neanderthal Man, a half-century established museum exhibit of a stooped; ape-like man, was at the same London conference revealed to be nothing more than a modern-type man (Time, ibid.) The 'bent-kneed, stooped' posture, which had hitherto been construed as an ape-like stance, was finally declared to be nothing else than the effects of age and arthritis. Thus, any old man today, stooped by arthritis and by the weight of his years, could have been pointed out by the Evolutionists as a missing-link; especially if he was posing naked, with a stone axe in his hand, and with a year's growth of hair and beard to make him more authentic. This, then, is what is finally revealed after fifty years of citing these fossils as proofs." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.17-18
-
"In the same year (1911) of the debut of the Neanderthal Man, another great find was announced: the Piltdown Man. For fifty years his picture, portrayed as if he had actually been photographed in real life, adorned the history books, although the find consisted of nothing more than a jawbone and a tooth. Replicas of this jaw were displayed in 300 museums throughout the world, for the edification of the public. Finally (10/22/53) it was discovered and publicly admitted that the jawbone was not a fossil, that the tooth had been trimmed with a file to aid in the deception, that the whole had been chemically dyed to simulate age, and that the jawbone belonged to an ape that had died fifty years ago. This, then is the stuff with which they seduced generations of young men from their belief in the Divinity of Man. For the edification of the youth, the school textbooks and the popular periodicals were always full of pictures of these mythical 'prehistoric' men, painted with such reality as to leave no doubt of their certainty. The inescapable fact, that, in a world full of human being who are exactly alike and can breed together, there is not a single sub-human or super-human, either alive or in fossil state, is the most obvious refutation against the theory of Evolution of Man. Where are the hundreds of various species of sub-humans who did not develop into Man? And what became of their remains? Their bones should be everywhere; but not a single one of these legendary 'missing links' has ever been found. Even if their bones 'could' have disappeared without a trace, their living descendants should have been found all over the world. Consider the dilemma of the Evolutionists: it would have been totally impossible, even according to them, that any two different species would have developed by accident into the identical Man. There are no variations of Man, for all races of men are exactly identical in all body organs, functions and structure; and they can all breed together. Yet these theorists are forced, by their theory, to say that all the 'lower species of men' either disappeared without a trace; or that all the 'lower species' accidentally developed in identical fashion and evolved into the identical Homo Sapiens: an obviously impossible claim. Of the millions of 'prehistoric' men which supposedly existed, not one has been discovered alive or dead; where many fossilized ordinary human bodies have been found...No mention is ever made in the books and newspapers about normal human fossils. The truth is less interesting. But, as the more honest ones admit, 'the missing-link is yet to be found,' although they have been searching high and low for decades, in the Himalayan mountaintops and in Siberian caves. In addition to this insoluble dilemma, is the fact that since the memory of Mankind, no living creature ever developed a new organ, although this should be happening quite frequently according to the sudden mutation theory; or gradually according to the old adaptation theory. They have no foot to stand on." Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth, pp.18-19
-
You just copy and paste. Ban this troll
-
I'm sorry but I maintain that, if G-d used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then "evolution", in the true, scientific sense, is a myth. If, for example, the eye developed on its own without any outside guidance, then it's evolution. But if G-d was overseeing it and moving it along (as it were), then nothing really "evolved." It only appears to have evolved. Well, what can I say? This is how I see it. Besides, where is any process like evolution mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible?
-
I'm sorry but I maintain that, if G-d used evolution to create Adam and Eve, then "evolution", in the true, scientific sense, is a myth. If, for example, the eye developed on its own without any outside guidance, then it's evolution. But if G-d was overseeing it and moving it along (as it were), then nothing really "evolved." It only appears to have evolved. Well, what can I say? This is how I see it. Besides, where is any process like evolution mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible?
You bring up a good point...only to us, the "evolution and development" of the eye looks to us as evolution, but really isn't evolution since Gd intended to create the eye in this manner. Yes, philosophically you are right...But scientifically, if evolution is true..or some of it is true, it's still science and helps further the cause of medicine, veterinary medicine, and organic technology.
I like the way Chaim puts it in regards to evolution. "Does it really matter? Gd exists. So what difference does it make if it is true or not?" And he says, "The Bible is a book of morals and not a science book."
Therefore, Rabbis and priests shouldn't pretend to be scientists when talking about evolution or the lack thereof and scientists should stay away pretending to be experts on the Bible. (that means that if an individual has no scientific background, they just shut up when they try to disprove evolution).
-
I like the way Chaim puts it in regards to evolution. "Does it really matter? Gd exists. So what difference does it make if it is true or not?" And he says, "The Bible is a book of morals and not a science book."
We believe (Orthodox Jews, as I have been taught) that the Torah is more than a book of 'morals'. As I have said also, it is not a science book or history book, but it does contain the truths of life. Morals relate to how man interacts with his fellow man. But the Torah involves the mitzvot, the commandments, which enable us to have a relationship with him.
Also we believe that the Torah contains the proof that Hashem has given the land of Canaan as a heritage to the Jewish people. If the Torah were simply a nice book of morals then we would look quite silly using it as the basic reason the Jewish people are to be in the Holy Land of Israel.
The Torah contains the truth of Creation, and through the deeper study of it (the Kabbalah and Sod levels of understanding) we can see that the Torah does contain hints about many things we don't yet understand. There are proofs that Judaism discussed the age of the universe and calculated it incredibly close to what science today calculates.
I would not go so far to say that the Torah is just a nice book of morality, as I consider that a denigration of our great heritage. But I am not, as I said before, going to stop believing in Hashem just because some scientists have some wild theories. Time will tell what is true, and what is false...
-
I find it amusing that people are still trying to discredit Darwin who had the most rudimentary idea of how evolution worked. That field of study was literally in its infancy at the time. Of course you're going to be able to find flaws with it. Young earth creationists seem to think that if they can find a flaw in Darwin's ideas that somehow that discredits the whole idea.
I try not to promote evolution because of the way some people take it to hurt their faith or to take the philosophy that it means we're not different from other animals. A lot of people think that accepting evolution makes you an atheist. One of the most frustrating things in dealing with other human beings is that you can say one thing but people will add several meanings to what you say that you never actually said.
For example if I were to say that I accept the theory of evolution as valid science, people have a tendency to jump to all sorts of unfounded conclusions about me and what I think and believe. It's extremely frustrating and I get tired of spending half the conversation trying to defend myself or dispel these wrong assumptions.
Another problem I run into is that people scream "there is no evidence!" and then they will not accept any evidence shown at all. No matter how thorough, compelling, or strong the evidence is, they continue to scream that there's no evidence because they have decided beforehand that there can not be any evidence.
One of those unfounded assumptions comes into play and that's that, if they accept evolution, they automatically have to abandon the Bible. I don't agree with that at all. However, this false belief causes a lot of emotional resistance to the idea that gets in the way of a clear-headed and unbiased evaluation of evidence.
Until people can get over that and be willing to accept what the evidence leads them to rather than coming to conclusions beforehand, then any argument is pretty much futile.
-
where does it say we're not allowed to evolve?
-
Well said rubystars. You expressed my sentiments perfectly.
-
Palma the order in which layers were deposited and the time it takes for sediments to form, as well as the chemical composition of the rocks themselves, can be used to date rock layers as well. There's a layer of iridium that was layed down world wide about 65 million years ago for example and this band is consistent from place to place.
Also we can look at the rate of sedimentation today and extrapolate how long it would have taken a particular layer of sediment layed down to form. The ones on the bottom are the oldest and the ones on the top are the youngest.
All this can be figured out with zero fossils.
Another thing to keep in mind is that your argument only works one way. It's possible to find older species in newer rock if they were thought to be extinct but really weren't. However it's not possible to find newer species in older rock layers. You will never find, for example, a reptile in the precambrian strata. They didn't exist until the Carboniferous.
-
I find it amusing that people are still trying to discredit Darwin who had the most rudimentary idea of how evolution worked. That field of study was literally in its infancy at the time. Of course you're going to be able to find flaws with it. Young earth creationists seem to think that if they can find a flaw in Darwin's ideas that somehow that discredits the whole idea.
I try not to promote evolution because of the way some people take it to hurt their faith or to take the philosophy that it means we're not different from other animals. A lot of people think that accepting evolution makes you an atheist. One of the most frustrating things in dealing with other human beings is that you can say one thing but people will add several meanings to what you say that you never actually said.
For example if I were to say that I accept the theory of evolution as valid science, people have a tendency to jump to all sorts of unfounded conclusions about me and what I think and believe. It's extremely frustrating and I get tired of spending half the conversation trying to defend myself or dispel these wrong assumptions.
Another problem I run into is that people scream "there is no evidence!" and then they will not accept any evidence shown at all. No matter how thorough, compelling, or strong the evidence is, they continue to scream that there's no evidence because they have decided beforehand that there can not be any evidence.
One of those unfounded assumptions comes into play and that's that, if they accept evolution, they automatically have to abandon the Bible. I don't agree with that at all. However, this false belief causes a lot of emotional resistance to the idea that gets in the way of a clear-headed and unbiased evaluation of evidence.
Until people can get over that and be willing to accept what the evidence leads them to rather than coming to conclusions beforehand, then any argument is pretty much futile.
"Some species considered by the Evolutionists as long extinct and therefore used to 'date the strata in which they are found, are still existing today. The coelacanth fish was supposed by the Evolutionists to have disappeared with the dinosaur 'sixty million' years ago; and coelacanth fossils found in rock beds were used as conclusive evidence that the beds are sixty million years old. But recently it was learned, to the consternation of the savants, that this fish was very much alive, and could be found in abundance off the coast of Madagascar, where the natives had been fishing for it all their lives. The experts are still puzzling over the 'colossal riddle' of how the coelacanth survived 'so long.' So, during all the decades in which the savants had been classifying this fish with the dinosaur and 'identifying' by it the age of rocks, the natives had been catching it and using its hard scales to roughen-up punctured bicycle tubes for patching. Who was more educated: the Madagascar native, who did not know of Evolution, or the Evolutionists who had believed that this fish 'had been the direct ancestor of Man'? It reminds me of the camel bones discovered in a midwestern state of the United States, and the scientific theories which were built on them; until an old metal tag was found nearby with the inscription 'U.S. Army.' Then it was finally revealed that the camels were imported by the War Department during the Civil War. Are these not isolated exceptions? No. Many of the supposedly long-extinct species are commonly found today. They are identical with the fossil species in everything but the most minor variations; which variations are no more significant than the variations found in the same species in different localities. But the evolutionary geologists prefer to make the most out of these variations, for they wish to classify the fossils as extinct and prehistoric species, in order to bolster up their theory of the 'age' of the rocks....A gigantic hoax underlies this whole system, which has entirely distorted the subject of geology. The Evolutionists claim the development of higher or more complex organisms from the lower or more simple organisms. (In this they contradict themselves hopelessly, for they at the same time claim that the huge and superdeveloped animals like the dinosaur lived only in the most 'distant' ages.) One of the chief bulwarks of their theory has always been the classification of the rock strata. Thus, they claimed to find the simple or 'early' forms of life in the 'early' strata, and the complex or 'recent' forms of life in the 'recent' strata. But in this lies their fraud: there are no characteristics by which to identify or 'date' the strata, except the fossils. When they have fossils which they find convenient to their system to classify as 'early', they thereupon use the fossils to identify the age of the strata containing these fossils. But, thereafter, any fossils which will be found in this stratum are 'proved' to be 'early' by the fact that they are found in the 'early stratum.' This plain deception is the main foundation of evolutionary geology. Many of the fossils classified as 'early' are not even extinct; and are to be found, with slight local variations, alive today. The fossils are not found in a uniformly 'ascending' system of layers, as the uninitiated layman is led to believe, with simple forms of life at the bottom (including the huge animals, although how they fit into the 'old' beds instead of the 'recent' beds I am at a loss to know) and the complex forms in the upper layers. For the 'early' fossils are found also in the topmost beds, and 'recent' fossils are also found in the lower beds. Also note that the geologists depict the earth's crust as an orderly, uniform system of beds lying on top of each other like a layer cake one hundred miles deep. But the truth is very far from this. Even according to their 'classification' methods, such a system of successive strata is found nowhere in the world except in their textbooks and their imagination. The deepest system of layers on earth is no more than three miles in depth, and in most places only a mere fraction of this depth exists. What these theorists have done, is this: The strata found in various localities are classified as being of various ages; then they add up all the strata of the world's crust to a hundred-mile deep system representing an enormous total of time. The plain truth is that these strata of the various localities are all shallow, and all are more or less contemporaneous. Then the evidence of the rocks is of no help to Evolution; on the contrary, the fact that some beds contain both simple and complex forms of life is evidence against their theory. They advance another argument, which is really a reproach to common sense. This is called: the ascending order of the species. The fact that the various species can be arranged in a certain order of ascending complexity is no more meaningful than the fact that a silver dollar, a half dollar, a quarter and a dime can be arranged in ascending order. We do not therefore arrive at the conclusion that the dime was minted earlier and the dollar was minted last; and surely no one concludes therefrom that the dollar 'developed' or evolved from the dime." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth!, pp. 27-28
-
Palma the order in which layers were deposited and the time it takes for sediments to form, as well as the chemical composition of the rocks themselves, can be used to date rock layers as well. There's a layer of iridium that was layed down world wide about 65 million years ago for example and this band is consistent from place to place.
Also we can look at the rate of sedimentation today and extrapolate how long it would have taken a particular layer of sediment layed down to form. The ones on the bottom are the oldest and the ones on the top are the youngest.
All this can be figured out with zero fossils.
Another thing to keep in mind is that your argument only works one way. It's possible to find older species in newer rock if they were thought to be extinct but really weren't. However it's not possible to find newer species in older rock layers. You will never find, for example, a reptile in the precambrian strata. They didn't exist until the Carboniferous.
"They [the Evolutionists] bring forward another proof...That is the proof from 'vestigial' organs. You may laugh at all their 'proofs.' Our forefather was named Yitzchok, 'he shall laugh,' in the future tense. The idolaters ridiculed us because we did not worship idols, and the theorists ridicule us because we do not agree that Man is a cousin of the chimpanzee; but we are t he ones who are entitled to laugh. And laugh we do, at all their vain caprices. Because they found certain organs in the body whose purpose they did not know, they came to the 'conclusion' that these organs had no purpose. They then took their next step into darkness by claiming that these organs are vestiges of some former state of existence in previous generations. But such evidence is only proof of ignorance. The pituitary gland, before its extremely vital function was discovered, was included by the Evolutionists among the 'vestigial' organs. The same happened in the case of some of the other endocrine glands. As time will increase men's knowledge, this 'vestigial' foolishness will melt away into oblivion. And...their argument from what they call the 'recapitulation' in the embryo? Again, ignorance is made into 'science.' Every process in the embryo is necessary, and not for the fanciful 'review of Evolution' which these men say. The drawings depicting the various embryos in the schoolbooks are intentionally falsified, and their purpose is to deceive the reader into the impression that the embryo of man is identical with animal embryos. The human embryo does not possess a 'tail,' or 'gills,' or even 'gill-slits' (these are mere folds), or a 'hairy stage.' These are but irresponsible and dishonest statements. The development does not even superficially follow the lines of the Evolution theory, for the stages of the embryo follow in the wrong order to mimic Evolution. These juvenile arguments are but desperate attempts to justify their theory. The truth, then is that Evolution is a religion; and its adherents defend it at all costs. And it is a religion which requires the most stubborn faith. When the structure of their theory, as preached by Darwin, fell apart and was abandoned, they bolstered it with the newer theory of sudden mutation, which is equally fanciful, and is patched together by far-fetched explanations which demand excessive credulity from the devotees of the theory. The true reason why they are so persistent is that they refuse to admit Creation by a Creator. Therefore, long after Evolution shall have died, other theories will be concocted to help men conceal the truth from their eyes." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rejoice O Youth!, pp. 29-30
-
I think the whole "Vestigial organ" argument is probably going to be abandoned simply for the fact that all organs that are retained were probably retained because they served a functional purpose. Harder to explain away though are atavisms like whales occasionally born with back legs or chickens occasionally born with teeth.
-
Evolve does not [censored] mean to adapt. It means to mutate. There are no half-pigs or beavers. Black people would have turned less black over a couple more hundred years, but there was a good deal of intermarriage. You also, did not mutate. Hopefully, because mutation MUST always be detrimental. Every proof 1-5
..................
y something to offend you. Instead, I would just like to call you an ignoramus where this junk science is concerned.
did you really write all that?
very interesting. I make observations and I ask questions. But to disappoint you, I don't claim to be a great debater.
-
vhy?
http://www.n24.de/media/_fotos/bildergalerien/002010/familiefeuerstein/BamBam_1024_wb.jpg#bam%20bam%201024x768 (http://www.n24.de/media/_fotos/bildergalerien/002010/familiefeuerstein/BamBam_1024_wb.jpg#bam%20bam%201024x768)
(http://www.n24.de/media/_fotos/bildergalerien/002010/familiefeuerstein/BamBam_1024_wb.jpg#bam%20bam%201024x768)
-
I'm not really interested in being bashed. I'm also not really interested in trying to convince someone who has decided beforehand not to accept any evidence presented or even to discuss that evidence. You're answering what I bring up with copy and paste rather than discussing it yourself. I don't feel like arguing with web pages.
So to answer your copy and paste, I'll paste one thing for you to watch, then I'm going to let you believe what you want. I don't feel movitated to convince anyone of evolution anymore because I don't want people to abandon faith because of it or to start thinking of humans as being on the same level as animals (while accepting evolution doesn't require someone to do that, unfortunately people jump to that false conclusion about it all too often).
I believe that regardless of how we got here, we got here because God willed it. Whether He commanded "let the earth bring forth" or He did it more directly, God still created using one method or another, so really convincing you that evolution is fact doesn't much matter to me.
You can watch this if you want to, but you don't have to if you don't want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
-
I'm not really interested in being bashed. I'm also not really interested in trying to convince someone who has decided beforehand not to accept any evidence presented or even to discuss that evidence. You're answering what I bring up with copy and paste rather than discussing it yourself. I don't feel like arguing with web pages.
So to answer your copy and paste, I'll paste one thing for you to watch, then I'm going to let you believe what you want. I don't feel movitated to convince anyone of evolution anymore because I don't want people to abandon faith because of it or to start thinking of humans as being on the same level as animals (while accepting evolution doesn't require someone to do that, unfortunately people jump to that false conclusion about it all too often).
I believe that regardless of how we got here, we got here because God willed it. Whether He commanded "let the earth bring forth" or He did it more directly, God still created using one method or another, so really convincing you that evolution is fact doesn't much matter to me.
You can watch this if you want to, but you don't have to if you don't want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
"Darwin's theory gained acceptance on the basis of ideas which have since been entirely discarded. 1)The Survival of the Fittest theory has proved untenable. Darwin knew nothing of the Mendelian laws, and he therefore failed to explain how new species could come into existence; and he was unable to offer any reasonable exposition of the mechanics of evolution. (The Mendelian system is also a failure as an explanation, but Darwin did not have even this shattered crutch.) 2) The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics has been ridiculed out of existence. Darwin's clumsy allegations were no more than a rehashed version of Lamarck's totally discredited theory of acquired characteristics. Darwin's apologists labored to disclaim any reliance upon the bankrupt Lamarck, but they admitted that "of all technicalities in biology this is the most difficult for the student to perceive." It was indeed difficult, for the original Darwinism was built entirely on the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. 3) Darwin's prediction that the future fossil finds would demonstrate every stage of evolution has turned into a fiasco; it is now generally conceded that "there is nothing to hope for" after 100 years of worldwide digging. 4) The theory of uniform mineral layers around the earth was long ago laughed away. But the theorists cannot allow the Theory to fall. Instead of mineral layers around the globe they have invented imaginary fossil layers. Instead of Darwin's magical Adaptation which was credited with the power of creating new beings, the theorists have snatched at the straw of Sudden Mutation, which explains nothing at all. The theory of sudden mutations is actually a theory of hundreds of thousands of lucky and coordinated accidents in each organism. But the old Darwinism is dead, and the glib explanations which gained its acceptance are universally recognized as false. Yet Darwinism cannot be abandoned. The truth is that proofs and explanations are secondary to the theorists; their real interest is in the theories alone. Proofs may come and go, but the theories remain." ---Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Sing You Righteous, pp.63-64