JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dan Ben Noah on April 29, 2014, 12:29:39 PM
-
Shalom
-
interesting read. still the bible is a book of morals, not paleo -archaeology
-
interesting read. still the bible is a book of morals, not paleo -archaeology
It has morals in it. It also has some science. It also has a pretty complete manual on how to live your life. But it's not any of those things. It's G-d's knowledge (either the essence or all) condensed into a book.
-
It has morals in it. It also has some science. It also has a pretty complete manual on how to live your life. But it's not any of those things. It's G-d's knowledge (either the essence or all) condensed into a book.
I guess a little science in a way. I've never read the Jewish bible.
-
I do not believe any 'scientist' unless he is speaking about a 'real' science which has experiments which can be reproduced in a lab. Theoretical science is full of junk, and virtually every theoretical science has been proven wrong in my lifetime. From the coming 'Ice Age' to the 'Global Warming' myth, from the medical junk science, to the environmental junk science.. I do not believe in Evolution as it is taught today.. It is another junk science.
-
I guess a little science in a way. I've never read the Jewish bible.
Well Talmud-Torah does have the number of stars in the universe, which NASA authenticated. Torah has the time it takes for the moon to renew down to the .000001 of a second, details on every animal in the world that is kosher, and other tidbits. It's not a science book, though, it's Torah.
-
Well Talmud-Torah does have the number of stars in the universe, which NASA authenticated. Torah has the time it takes for the moon to renew down to the .000001 of a second, details on every animal in the world that is kosher, and other tidbits. It's not a science book, though, it's Torah.
that's interesting.
where can I see this?
is there a copy of torah that we can see?
I haven't been successful in finding a copy of the torah. mainly because I don't understand the concept of the torah.
For example, the bible is simply one book you can hold in one hand. The filthy kkkoran is one filthy that you could, but wouldn't want to hold in one hand.
-
that's interesting.
where can I see this?
is there a copy of torah that we can see?
I haven't been successful in finding a copy of the torah. mainly because I don't understand the concept of the torah.
For example, the bible is simply one book you can hold in one hand. The filthy kkkoran is one filthy that you could, but wouldn't want to hold in one hand.
Torah:http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
Talmud: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm
-
There's got to be more than that. I heard there are volumes.
-
There's got to be more than that. I heard there are volumes.
Torah and most of Talmud are there. Gemarra has volumes, and it is a commentary on Talmud, but that's pretty extensive learning. I read some once, and it was really like studying law.
-
I prefer this site for my Talmud reference...
http://halakhah.com/
-
Does a 6,000-year-old earth match the findings of modern science?
No
Lyell discovered that the earth was old before Darwin and modern science confirms it.
Thus, mitochondrial DNA differences among modern individuals within a created “kind” trace back to the maternal ancestor of the kind.
"Kind" is not a scientific word. It's something pulled out of the KJV and warped into the meaning YECs use it for, in order that they can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for small-scale evolution without admitting that it's the same process as large-scale evolution, just over a shorter period of time.
If kinds have existed on this planet for millions of years, then they should be quite genetically diverse. In contrast, if their origins trace back only 6,000 years, then they should be more genetically homogeneous.
Life on earth is genetically diverse. I guess in order to stick with this story though, if something is too diverse they just say it's a different "kind". For example... foxes and wolves, YECs will say it's the same kind. Foxes, wolves, bears, weasels and cats (All in Carnivora), young earth creationists say they're different kinds, regardless of the fact they are genetically close and have Carnivora physical traits that set them apart from other life on earth.
Secular scientists have spent many years developing the equations for estimating DNA differences over time.
It's used to determine when two different species shared a common ancestor.
Secular scientists have measured the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for four species—humans, fruit flies, roundworms, and water fleas. The Bible puts the origin of each of these about 6,000 years ago, and we rounded it up to 10,000 years.
Yeah, why not round it up by about 67%, what difference in accuracy could it possibly make? :::D
Plugging these numbers into equation (1) reveals a sharp contrast between the creation and evolutionary predictions (Figures 1 and 2). For example, the measured mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for humans is, on average, ~0.00048 mutations per year.4,5 Multiplying 0.00048 by 2 and by 10,000 years yields a prediction of about 10 mutations after 10,000 years of existence. Conversely, multiplying 0.00048 by 2 and by 180,000 years yields a prediction of about 174 mutations after 180,000 years of existence.4,6
Comparing these predictions to the range of actual human mitochondrial DNA diversity shows a striking result (Figure 1).4 On average, human mitochondrial DNA sequences differ at 10 positions. The biblical model predicts a range of diversity that accurately captures this value. In contrast, the evolutionary timescale (and, by extension, the old-earth creation timescale) predicts levels of genetic diversity that are 12–29 times off the real DNA differences that we see today (124–290 mitochondrial DNA differences versus 10).
The equations are talking about average mutation rate over time, but there are times when there is more selection pressure or less selection pressure. The claim that evolutionists somehow believe evolution happens at a steady pace all along the way is a gross misunderstanding. Evolution tends to move faster when new niches open up to exploit due to extinction of those creatures previously filling those roles. It might slow down if the creature is well-suited to its environment and new mutations provide no selective advantage. A mutation is only "good" or "bad" in the context of the environment it's in. A mutation for thicker hair would be good in a cold climate up to a point, but in a hot climate it would be bad. In a temperate climate, it might be neutral.
they would need to mutate only once every 21,000–36,000 years and consistently so for millions of years (Table 1). This incredibly slow rate is completely counter to the actual mutation rates observed in genetics; in fact, rates this slow seem biologically impossible.
Are they really this dumb that they don't realize that this is an argument in favor of evolution? If all evolution needed was a positive mutation to spread once ever 30k years or so, then all those arguments YECs bring up about how most mutations are bad are thrown out the window. :::D
I think we all know that mutations do happen more often than that, and the good ones are more likely to be spread through a population through natural selection. Every offspring has mutations from its parents (most of them are neutral) and sexual reproduction mixes things up even more by allowing the offspring to receive genetic information from both parents, increasing the likelihood of inheriting a good mutation and making it more likely that such a good mutation will spread through the population.
-
No
Lyell discovered that the earth was old before Darwin and modern science confirms it.
Torah says the world is old, but the life on it could not be more than 10,000 years old at the rate of animo acid breakdown
"Kind" is not a scientific word. It's something pulled out of the KJV and warped into the meaning YECs use it for, in order that they can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for small-scale evolution without admitting that it's the same process as large-scale evolution, just over a shorter period of time.
I am not aware of anyone anywhere denying the existence of microevolution. The key point in it is that a basic "kind", will adapt based on its environment. It will not become another animal. Microevolution gives no indication that any creature will become another. In fact, after evolving to a different environment, the DNA of a creature will revert over generations if reintroduced into its previous environment. No dog becomes a cat, and if you prefer "species" then species stay the same, and always will. Macroevolution is contrary to the scientific method, as nothing has been observed, and all evidence points to it being a hoax
Life on earth is genetically diverse. I guess in order to stick with this story though, if something is too diverse they just say it's a different "kind". For example... foxes and wolves, YECs will say it's the same kind. Foxes, wolves, bears, weasels and cats (All in Carnivora), young earth creationists say they're different kinds, regardless of the fact they are genetically close and have Carnivora physical traits that set them apart from other life on earth.
Species, if you don't like "kind". We are genetically close to pigs, but will never become one, nor has any pig developed in any remotely human-like fashion. You can make groups that are very lovely that are filled with different animals, but that doesn't change the FACT that weasels will never be cats, and all evidence shows this is impossible. Enough retard theories.
It's used to determine when two different species shared a common ancestor.
And it doesn't help the retard theory that DNA reverts to its original if returned to its environment, meaning that that the DNA doesn't change at a constant rate, and the retard theory disappears when you notice DNA changes end after several generations in the same environment. That's why you have specific breeds of dog that stay the same in specific countries, for starters. Any other mutations are ALWAYS negative.
Yeah, why not round it up by about 67%, what difference in accuracy could it possibly make?
I believe, unless you're just trying to tickle yourself with a little laugh, that I've missed your point there.
The equations are talking about average mutation rate over time, but there are times when there is more selection pressure or less selection pressure. The claim that evolutionists somehow believe evolution happens at a steady pace all along the way is a gross misunderstanding. Evolution tends to move faster when new niches open up to exploit due to extinction of those creatures previously filling those roles. It might slow down if the creature is well-suited to its environment and new mutations provide no selective advantage. A mutation is only "good" or "bad" in the context of the environment it's in. A mutation for thicker hair would be good in a cold climate up to a point, but in a hot climate it would be bad. In a temperate climate, it might be neutral.
Some do. In fact, ask almost any class full of any discipline of evolutionists how it works, and if there are 30 students, you will have 50 answers. Also, you just pointed out adaptation to environment, something observable. Growing a rabbit on your head, be it good, bad or neutral is not observable, neither is a rabbit turning into anything but a different rabbit.
Are they really this dumb that they don't realize that this is an argument in favor of evolution? If all evolution needed was a positive mutation to spread once ever 30k years or so, then all those arguments YECs bring up about how most mutations are bad are thrown out the window.
I think we all know that mutations do happen more often than that, and the good ones are more likely to be spread through a population through natural selection. Every offspring has mutations from its parents (most of them are neutral) and sexual reproduction mixes things up even more by allowing the offspring to receive genetic information from both parents, increasing the likelihood of inheriting a good mutation and making it more likely that such a good mutation will spread through the population.
So 30k years of negative mutation, then 1 positive one, and we've advanced. Don't be absurd. Overall, people are weaker and dumber than their ancestors were. This happens generation after generation. It's kind of funny to see someone with no university calling a scientist dumb, but surely, they wouldn't take offense to that, considering you and your line of argumentation. Oh and for your last "point" try to name a positive mutation not related to adaptation to environment.