comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline

[christians4jews]

i agree mate. The evidence shown by these so called evolutionists on here is nothing less than terrible.

You haven't really responded to the evidence shown to you.

Next they will show the italian walled lizzard or bones with feathers on it with evidence.

Are you talking about Archeopteryx or Microraptor, etc?

Two things atheists and religion of evolutionists say as a debate

1) it took millions of years hence why no one saw it...

Not all evolution takes that long, and besides, it's the creationists who say "you weren't there!" Scientists can look at evidence left behind to find out what happened in the past, and "see" it that way.

2) "oh you just dont understand evolution"

So if you understand evolution please explain to me what it is and how it works. Most creationists have a very distorted view of what it is.

Thata there two arguements, and that is why they sack anyone against evolution. That timeline i showed is clear as day, you either believe in G-d, or you believe in evolution, they are not compatible im afraid.

That's not how it works. I love G-d.

im sorry ruby but i seen all of these so called mssing loinks and fossil and geometric layers etc etc. All would be laughed at in the court of law. If evolution was a murderer and you showed that to any sane judge, evolution would get off everytime and you know it.

Tell you what why dont you get chaim on here, you show him that cringingly rubbish evidence and lets see what he says. I bet you he will debunk each one in seconds. And the guys not even a scientist.

As for your explaining evolution, it should be you that explains its. Since why would i explain something that doesnt exist??

I think the challenge should be with you lot, so heres my challenge. I want you(or kahanist is right) to explain/write a  timeline for idiots like me, chaim and dan or obviously dont understand it, how a single celled oganism was formed, and how it formed life as we know it. I want you in this time to explain how dna was formed, how we evolved emotions everything.


Since this is such a easy and simple science, to the point where people are getting sacked if they dont believe in it, its that obvious.


Good luck, i bet you both wont come back wih an answer.

[Rubystars]

im sorry ruby but i seen all of these so called mssing loinks and fossil and geometric layers etc etc. All would be laughed at in the court of law. If evolution was a murderer and you showed that to any sane judge, evolution would get off everytime and you know it.

In many cases, people can be convicted on strong enough circumstancial evidence. Evolution has a lot of direct evidence.

Tell you what why dont you get chaim on here, you show him that cringingly rubbish evidence and lets see what he says. I bet you he will debunk each one in seconds. And the guys not even a scientist.

Chaim's main beef with evolution is that it includes humans. To be honest this is a theological problem (not a scientific one). I also believe that human beings are spiritually set apart from animals. The only thing I probably disagree with him on is whether or not humans are physically related to the rest of the creation.

As for your explaining evolution, it should be you that explains its. Since why would i explain something that doesnt exist??

You say you understand it, and that saying you don't understand it is a bad argument. So I just want to know if you know what you're arguing against. Most creationists have no idea.

I think the challenge should be with you lot, so heres my challenge. I want you(or kahanist is right) to explain/write a  timeline for idiots like me, chaim and dan or obviously dont understand it, how a single celled oganism was formed, and how it formed life as we know it. I want you in this time to explain how dna was formed, how we evolved emotions everything.

There are different ideas right now about how the first life might have formed. One idea that has a lot of traction is that there was free replicating genetic type materials around and cells developed as survival/reproduction machines for this material. This really has nothing to do with evolution per se. Evolution is about the diversity of life, not about how life began. It's about how life changed from that first life to everything we see today. DNA is a really complex type of self-replicator. There are less complex ones such as RNA that probably came together first. This would have happened before the first actual cellular life, so again it doesn't completely pertain to evolution (which is about the diversity of life, not its origin).

About emotions, our brains have certain processes involving brain chemicals that produce certain emotions. I'm not even sure if brain specialists understand all of it, although they know a lot more than I do. Certain chemicals can produce a "happy mood" if you take them, like ecstasy (I don't recommend this) so it's pretty well established that emotions are chemically regulated in the brain. Brains started out as being basically a bundle of nerves, like in planarians



These creatures have primitive types of eyes that need that bundle of nerves to help them function.

More complex creatures needed more complex brains. Emotions would have developed along with this. Reptiles today probably have very basic emotions, such as being content, comfortable, uncomfortable, and perhaps fear. Mammals and birds have shown much more complex emotions, with humans having the most complex of all.

Since this is such a easy and simple science, to the point where people are getting sacked if they dont believe in it, its that obvious.

I don't see how you can have a chief scientist who rejects large portions of science and still call them qualified.

Good luck, i bet you both wont come back wih an answer.

I've done my best. You don't seem that interested in really reading our answers though.

[muman613]

Here is an interesting article from Aish.com on this topic:

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936977.html

Not By Chance- Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
by Dr. Lee M. Spetner

A physicist brings a novel approach that challenges the assumptions of evolution.

(Adapted for the web by Rabbi Shmuel Silinsky)

Dr. Spetner's book, "Not By Chance", has created a stir among biologists and geneticists. It explains a new approach to evaluating evolution, and has been hailed by Professor E. Simon of Purdue University, a prominent geneticist, as "the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read."

Dr. Spetner shows that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot do what is claimed for it; the theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It simply cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution.

What follows is a synopsis of some points in the book. For in depth understanding, read the book for yourself. You can get it at Amazon Books.

A SYNOPSIS

When prominent biologists claim that "evolution is a fact," they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe. The theory of evolution -- and it is just that, a theory -- states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms. But this is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.

According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection. This theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps. In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will
spread that change through the population. Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work, and on the basis of that assumption, evolution is said to account for the development of all life.

    On the basis of an unproven assumption, evolution is said to account for the development of all life.

Experiments have also been performed to show that the process of selection does indeed work under the right conditions. Moreover, random mutations have been observed that do improve the adaptiveness of the organism under certain conditions. From these observations, evolutionists have (unjustifiably) extrapolated to say that random mutations and natural selection can account for the development of life.

THE GLITCH IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

However, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. On theoretical grounds, the probability is just too small for random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, to lead to a new species.


On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. This may seem surprising at first, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it.

One of the examples where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Clearly, if random mutations could account for the evolution of life, then those mutations must have added a vast amount of information to the genetic code. From the time of the first simple organism until the present profusion of life, billions of genetic changes would have to be built up by a long series of accumulated mutations and natural selection. It follows that each of these many billions of mutations must have added information. Yet in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single one has been found that adds any genetic information! They all lose information!

NON-RANDOM EVOLUTION

There is, however, both direct and indirect evidence that some evolution has occurred. How did it occur?

It is suggested that although significant evolution cannot occur by random mutations, it could occur by non-random mutations. Non-random here means that the environment itself influences what mutations can occur. There is extensive evidence for evolution by non-random mutations -- evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates.

No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in this basic argument. No one has so far refuted this conclusion.

    No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in this basic argument, nor refuted this conclusion.

 Whereas standard neo-Darwinian theory relies on point mutations that are essentially mistakes in replicating the DNA, there are other kinds of mutations that are not mistakes.

Genetic rearrangements are complex genetic changes. They are carried out with precision and are driven by sophisticated
cellular mechanisms. These mutations appear to be triggered by cues from the environment and they do not appear to be the product only of chance.

These genetic rearrangements may be part of a built-in mechanism that permits a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment. Part of the genetic program of the organism seems to be a set of genetic switches that can be triggered by the environment. These enable a heritable switch in the organism to one of a limited set of alternate forms. An interesting feature of this mechanism is that it can cause a population to adapt rapidly to a new environment.

Since "Not By Chance" has been published, biologists are beginning to acknowledge the importance of these non-random mutations in evolution. They suggest, though, that these built-in mechanisms have themselves evolved. Can this be?

Classic neo-Darwinian evolution calls for many steps, each consisting of a large number of trials whose duration is a generation. For the evolution of these built-in mechanisms one must invoke the same kind of process, but each trial would have to have a duration of millions of generations. Can this really be?

This brief synopsis gives several points mentioned in Dr Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance". For in depth understanding, read the book for yourself. You can get it at Amazon Books

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

are you serious?  THAT's the plain meaning of the text?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?

1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

2:4  "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."

But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?

Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.

And you refer to verse 9  "And the Lord G-d 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."

And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9!   Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created (or caused to sprout forth) before adam.

It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all.     Is that not a contradiction in terms?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?

1:11 And G-d said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and G-d saw that it was good.

1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

I don't see mention of the bushes and grasses of the field that had not yet sprouted in Chapter 2.  The types of plants that G-d caused to sprout in Genesis 1 are different from the types of plants that had not yet sprouted in the beginning of Genesis 2.

And you claim that that is a plain reading of the text?!

I mean, are you claiming that the phrase trees of the field exclude trees that are pleasant or produce fruit (and vice versa)?   What kind of trees are trees of the field then?!      These are multiple ways to describe trees.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

2:4  "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."

But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?

Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.

And you refer to verse 9  "And the Lord G-d 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."

And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9!   Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.

It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all.     Is that not a contradiction in terms?

The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath.  Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day.  Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview. 

Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal.   But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture.   It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me.   I get it.

It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day.  Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain.  Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.

No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:

You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"     

Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation.   So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.

So as long as the non-literal reading is used to uphold "the holy premise" (why is that a premise we should assume?   I'm still waiting for that explanation), then it's certainly Grade-A Kosher.   But nothing else can be read non-literally unless to uphold "the premise" because the premise is the only thing that makes a non-literal reading necessary and therefore not-blasphemous. 

Btw, does the necessity of a thing make it inherently not blasphemous?   Or is the non-literal reading itself already not blasphemous, based on principles of what defines blasphemy/heresy, and then the non-literal reading gets used in whatever circumstances deemed necessary or appropriate?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Let's review from Bereshith 1, shall we?

1:11 And G-d said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

1:12 And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and G-d saw that it was good.

1:13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

I don't see mention of the bushes and grasses of the field that had not yet sprouted in Chapter 2.  The types of plants that G-d caused to sprout in Genesis 1 are different from the types of plants that had not yet sprouted in the beginning of Genesis 2.

And you claim that that is a plain reading of the text?!

I mean, are you claiming that the phrase trees of the field exclude trees that are pleasant or produce fruit (and vice versa)?   What kind of trees are trees of the field then?!      These are multiple ways to describe trees.

No, chapter 2 gets more specific.  Certain types of agricultural vegetation in particular apparently had not yet sprouted, because it specifically mentions "of the field" which is not mentioned in chapter 1.  It is talking about the Garden of Eden, which G-d made man to work in.  Not all plants that ever lived sprouted on day 3.

So "trees of the field" cannot grow without rain, but other types of trees that give fruit can grow without rain?

Come on man, you are just grasping for straws.  It's clear that you have to pull out a hundred tricks and twists in order to reconcile these two accounts and explain away the seeming differences.   That in itself is proof that there are differences, and different people will explain them in different ways.   You just have to accept that your own starting assumptions are not necessarily the gospel and there are different ways to answer these questions.    You are giving me an interpretation and then saying that's the only way to read the plain text, and that's simply dishonest!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

2:4  "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."

But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?

Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.

And you refer to verse 9  "And the Lord G-d 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."

And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9!   Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.

It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all.     Is that not a contradiction in terms?

The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath.  Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day.  Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview. 

Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal.   But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture.   It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me.   I get it.

It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day.  Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain.  Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.

No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:

You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"     

Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation.   So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.

Day is not literal here because it says "yom asot Hashem" which literally means day of G-d's making.  This is much different from "yom echad" which means one day, or yom sheni which means second day, which are clearly talking about certain days and not figuratively.  You could probably find more instances in the Bible where day is used like this.

I am reading very literally and taking the text seriously--you are starting with the assumption that it is 2 stories and reading in contradictions.  I have backed up everything I claimed.

Anyone with human intelligence can read the verses and see differences - it doesn't require a starting assumption.   Rav Soloveitchik obviously saw differences and commented on them.  Rashi saw differences.   Many rishonim saw differences and commented on them.  It is only you who claims that not only are their answers invalid but that even posing the question isn't valid and that it requires some kind of dogmatic belief to arrive at these questions.    That's silly.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

2:4  "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made earth and heaven."

But were the animals and man (not to mention the plants, a subject which we already covered) made on the same "day" that G-d made heaven and earth?

Certainly not according to the plain text of chapter 1.

And you refer to verse 9  "And the Lord G-d 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."

And you suggest that the "caused to sprout" is past tense and refers back to any time in the past, but that clearly contradicts the implications of all the verses in chapter 2 leading up to verse 9!   Clearly it's being implied that the plants and trees were not created before adam.

It seems to me that your "plain reading of the text" isn't very literal at all.     Is that not a contradiction in terms?

The beginning of 2:4 in the Torah Hebrew text is connected to the end of the previous passage which talks about the Sabbath.  Day here is talking about the timeframe that G-d created heaven and earth, not that it was created all in one day.  Just like in Genesis 1:1 it gives an overview. 

Oh, so suddenly "day" is not literal.   But when I view the same word as not literal and consider the same Hebrew word to refer to periods of time much greater than a 24-hour period and therefore conclude that the world is billions of years old, I'm selling out to science and modern society's culture.   It's ok for you, but it's not ok for me.   I get it.

It already stated before verse 2:9 that at least certain plants were created on the third day.  Verse 9 shows that certain plants in the Garden of Eden sprouted later, without the help of man tilling the soil or rain.  Nothing in chapter 2 "implies" a contradiction of chapter 1 if you just look at what it says.

No you are not looking at what it says, you are doing the following:

You begin with the premise that "Bereshith Chapter 1 and Bereshith Chapter 2 contain no contradictions and no double messages and no metaphors, and no differences"     

Then, with this assumption in tow, certain aspects of Bereshith 1 and 2 then become difficult and require explanation.   So you then read these difficult areas into your above stated premise even with non-literal readings if necessary to make sure that the Premise comes out true and upheld.

Day is not literal here because it says "yom asot Hashem" which literally means day of G-d's making.  This is much different from "yom echad" which means one day, or yom sheni which means second day, which are clearly talking about certain days and not figuratively.  You could probably find more instances in the Bible where day is used like this.

I am reading very literally and taking the text seriously--you are starting with the assumption that it is 2 stories and reading in contradictions.  I have backed up everything I claimed.

And no you are not reading very literally, you are making twists and turns in order to fit your presumption about the text.   

If Day one or 2nd day or 3rd day can't be non-literal, then so too Day of G-d's making can't be non-literal.  (but why not?  Is there some reason why they can't be non-literal?)  If Day of G-d's creating can be non-literal, then there is no rational reason that I can't possibly say Day 1 or 2nd day etc are non-literal.   

I really don't understand why you think your allegorical reading, the same one you are making, is somehow assur or heretical or blasphemous or whatever else when done on a different portion of the text, a chapter earlier.   Is there some basis for that rigid refusal to employ your own methods of interpretation?  Or you simply don't like it since it's not your own interpretation?   

You don't have to like it, but don't claim it's reformism or some kind of biblical criticism - because that's a bastardization of what's being done and it's also a distortion.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts.  The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d. 

This is a lie.

Read Lonely man of faith.   I already explained why I'm not going to simplify the ideas to a soundbite or one-word sentence to have you ridicule them like an infantile shmuck.   

I had an entire shiur on Sefer Bereshith for weeks when I was in yeshiva and we discussed many aspects of this.   But you are already assuming the interpretation is forbidden and heretical.   At that point, why should it matter if anything of value comes out of the interpretation.  You will only belittle it and desecrate yourself in front of G-d because you are convinced that "this cannot be."  Like I said, I'm not going to be a party to that.   Go read the book and learn something instead of carrying on like a fool.

"about your so-called belief in G-d.  "

What gives you the right to say this [edited]?

You have resorted to ad hominem attack   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The phrase "day of G-d's making" is similar to saying the "day of Israel's suffering" or something in the sense that it has another meaning in contrast to specific days that are numbered.  It is saying at the time that G-d made heaven and earth.  It even says later in Exodus that G-d created the world in 6 days.  So you are actually the one doing the distortions.  Think about it, people who don't even believe in the Bible shouldn't be giving instructions on how to read it.

What kind of baloney is this?   Why do you ascribe to me views that aren't mine?   Because you don't like what I say, you want to paint me as an atheist because it's easier to attack the "enemy atheist" than it is to actually prove wrong what I'm saying.     {edited}You have resorted to ad hominem attack, Dan   

    If I don't believe in the Bible I really don't know why I'm keeping the commandments.   In fact, I wouldn't do so if I didn't believe!   So drop this meaningless ad hominem {edited}

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Btw dan ben noah, why don't you take a look at the Torah section and see the latest thread I made.

Are you going to sling mud at Rav Hirsh too?     

At this point it wouldn't even surprise me.   Your behavior is disgusting.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts.  The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d. 

This is a lie.

Read Lonely man of faith.   I already explained why I'm not going to simplify the ideas to a soundbite or one-word sentence to have you ridicule them like an infantile shmuck.   

I had an entire shiur on Sefer Bereshith for weeks when I was in yeshiva and we discussed many aspects of this.   But you are already assuming the interpretation is forbidden and heretical.   At that point, why should it matter if anything of value comes out of the interpretation.  You will only belittle it and desecrate yourself in front of G-d because you are convinced that "this cannot be."  Like I said, I'm not going to be a party to that.   Go read the book and learn something instead of carrying on like a fool.

"about your so-called belief in G-d.  "

What gives you the right to say this you condescending little worm?   You are really [censored] me off now.   

You are not giving it out because you know that it's a bunch of nonsense.  Adam I and Adam II are not more credible than a plain meaning reading of the Bible.  

It's kind of like Muslims say they believe in one G-d, but their view of Him is totally different than how G-d actually revealed Himself.  If you observe Shabbat, you are missing the whole point of the commemoration, which is clearly stated that it's because G-d created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

Now Rav Soloveitchik is a muslim?   Wtf is wrong with you?

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

Guys! What is going on here?

Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

We have to learn to debate and disagree without taking differences of opinion personally.

I have not even read this whole argument but certainly we can explain without insulting.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

בס''ד

Guys! What is going on here?

Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.

Chaim, don't give me this.

I respect Dan Ben Noah.  He does not return the favor.   He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write.    I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me.   I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.    

In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic.  These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads.   But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts.   I'm certainly not going to take this crap.

[Meerkat]

didn't Rav Kook believe in evolution?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

didn't Rav Kook believe in evolution?

And take a look at the Torah thread - Rav Hirsh didn't "believe in it" (it was brand new as a theory without much evidence behind it) yet he explained how it wouldn't be a challenge to Judaism if it was true.    But some people think they know more than Rav Hirsh, Rav Kook, and Rav Soloveitchik combined.   

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

Guys! What is going on here?

Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.

Chaim, don't give me this.

I respect Dan Ben Noah.  He does not return the favor.   He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write.    I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me.   I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.    

In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic.  These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads.   But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts.   I'm certainly not going to take this crap.

בס''ד

I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

בס''ד

Guys! What is going on here?

Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.

Chaim, don't give me this.

I respect Dan Ben Noah.  He does not return the favor.   He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write.    I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me.   I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.    

In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic.  These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads.   But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts.   I'm certainly not going to take this crap.

בס''ד

I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?

Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in God?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You have only given me one rabbi with this perspective, and you have given me no reason to believe there is anything substantially spiritual you can take away from the idea of 2 creation accounts.  The reason you believe in it is because you read the Bible through the lense of modern trends so you feel more comfortable about your so-called belief in G-d.

The phrase "day of G-d's making" is similar to saying the "day of Israel's suffering" or something in the sense that it has another meaning in contrast to specific days that are numbered.  It is saying at the time that G-d made heaven and earth.  It even says later in Exodus that G-d created the world in 6 days.  So you are actually the one doing the distortions.  Think about it, people who don't even believe in the Bible shouldn't be giving instructions on how to read it.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

Guys! What is going on here?

Why the insults? Please! Can't we debate on this forum without insults? Both of you are great people. You should respect each other.

Chaim, don't give me this.

I respect Dan Ben Noah.  He does not return the favor.   He belittles my religiosity like a little school girl because he is scared of what I write.    I can't do anything about that but I'm not going to back down to his wimpy ad hominem attacks and false claims about me.   I'm not a pious rabbi, I'm a regular Jew that's not going to let him walk over me behaving like an animal.    

In his mind if you read scripture differently than him, you're a heretic.  These are the kind of nuts who destroy Judaism and put up bans of concerts and try to ban all the things they don't like with their meaningless posters that no one reads.   But sometimes good people do get hurt by this narishkeit even tho no one cares about these nuts.   I'm certainly not going to take this crap.

בס''ד

I didn't read the whole argument here but I don't see this. He is simply disagreeing with you. Can't we have vigorous and healthy arguments here between friends?

Disagreeing with me by claiming I don't believe in G-d?

בס''ד

Both of you have gotten carried away here. KWRBT, you know who Dan is and how much he does for the cause.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

What is your main argument here?