I don't understand some of your answer choices.
"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"
Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?
I don't understand some of your answer choices.
"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"
Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?
Depends on what someone means by apes. Evolution does NOT say that humans came from chimpanzees, gorillas, or any other modern type of ape, which are also quite derived from the common ancestor. It does say we share a common ancestor with them which is not identical to anything living today.
Sorry KWRBT. There used to be a lot of people who would ask me questions like "so if evolution is true why are chimpanzees not giving birth to humans".:::D
The platypus has a duck's bill, webbed feet, a tail like a beaver, has legs attached to the sides of its body like a reptile. It lays eggs, but feeds its young with milk like a mammal, has receptors on its head which can detect electromagnetic bio-waves released by other animals, and has venomous spines on its rear feet for stinging prey and predators. It has no teeth, but grinds its food using rocks it picks up from the bottoms of streams.
In other words, it appears to be totally unique, and evolved from no other species into its present form.
In addition, rarely a week goes by without scientists announcing the "discovery' of entirely new species of animals in Borneo, South American rainforests, etc...
If this be the case, then their standardized progression of the origin of species is totally without merit, because none of these new species can be accounted for in terms of from which other animals they did evolve.
What these "scientists" are in fact doing is first declaring their unchallengeable Theory of Evolution, refusing to allow anyone to question it or challenge it. And then, as the actual facts present themselves which can not be "fit" into the puzzle, they simply "change the rules" and invent new hitherto unknown classifications in order to make everything "fit" their protocol.
Bear in mind -- these are the same "Scientists" who proclaim loudly that "THERE WAS NO EXODUS!", -- "NO PROOF" OF ANY KIND THAT HEBREWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT -- NO PROOF THAT A PASSOVER EVER OCCURRED! They further claim that MOSES IS A COMPLETE MYTHIC CONSTRUCT AND NEVER EXISTED! -- their "PROOF" being that "NO ARCHAELOGICAL EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE THAT ISRAELITES EVER CROSSED THE RED SEA, WANDERED IN THE DESERT 40 YEARS, AND THEN CONQUERED THE LAND OF CANAAN!"
I ask them: In order for anyone to believe you, please show us the animals from which the platypus evolved.
They can't.
There's a BOOK written by Jews which proves that a people existed with their own history, language, culture, and G-d.
THAT is another FACT which the "Scientists" denounce as "NO PROOF!"
That's a hell of a lot more proof than their simply one day declaring a new classification of species called a monotreme!
I'll present a meager quantity of evidence that I have on hand from past discussion of the subject. I can't promise that I will convince you, but I can promise that the evidence points *very* strongly towards evolutionary theory.
The Lenski LTEE E. coli experiment showed that natural selecting acting on random mutation produces new information and novel function. Here is the original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
The experiments showing the development of coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris in response to predation shows how natural selection produces significant alterations, as well as giving a possible origin for multicellularity. The original paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/
The nylon bacteria is very similar to the LTEE E. coli, except that the mutations have been subjected to further analysis. Here a completely novel function was created by gene duplication followed by random variation, including a frameshift mutation. A source:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Endogenous retroviral DNA is left over from prior viral infection. In many species, the same infections are found at the same insertion sites in the genome. This is an extremely strong indicator that the species share a common ancestor that was infected by the virus. Moreover, the phylogenies constructed this way agree with other constructions, e.g. humans share the most insertion sites with chimps, somewhat less with other apes, somewhat less with other primates, and so on. Link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1151w643k336v15/
The fused chromosome 2 is the answer to a question long asked by evolutionary biologists--why is it that humans carry only 23 chromosome pairs, while their closest relatives (e.g. the chimps) all carry 24? The answer can be found in the human's Chromosome 2, which has all the appearances of two chromosomes fused together: two centromeres, chromosome cap DNA in the middle of the chromosome, and so on. Each part of Chromosome 2 corresponds to a chromosome in the ape genome, indicating that somewhere in our recent evolutionary past, a fusion event occurred. The original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract
Similarly, the inability of humans and apes to synthesize vitamin C, a capability other mammals have, puzzled biologists for a while. But in our genome is the same gene that codes for a key protein in vitamin C synthesis in mammals--except bits of it have mutated and been broken. The fact that this broken gene is shared by humans and apes strongly indicates common ancestry. Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9655531
Speciation in crickets...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n1/full/6800690a.html
Plants...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5840/910
Flies...
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000550
And various other organisms...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6156/abs/331485a0.html
all indicate that whatever barriers creationists would like to put up to evolution, they don't involve the species barrier.
Tangential point: Foxes and dogs can interbreed, and dogs and coyotes can interbreed, but foxes and coyotes cannot interbreed. Are these all one creationist 'kind'? What about other canines?
Genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming indicate that those creationist barriers don't include complex systems either. Natural selection acting on random mutation in simulation has been observed to produce complex systems, sometimes systems even engineers don't really understand. The most common creationist complaint about this work is that because it is computer science, human intelligence is involved. But the intelligence is used to set up the environment--in other words, to simulate nature. The processes by which evolution occur are mirrored without intelligent input. So the use of this work as evidence remains valid. Link:
http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt/survey/ea.html
Detailed fossil trees, such as the horse evolution tree and the human evolution tree, indicate significant morphological change arising gradually, and common ancestry with related organisms. Hyracotherium can hardly be called a 'horse', just as Ardi and Lucy can hardly be called 'human', but the fossils linking Hyracotherium to the modern horse, and Ardi to modern humans, are unbreakable--though the exact nature of the connection is always subject to change via new fossil evidence. Links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The structure of the fossil record is quite astonishing. It's exactly what we wouldn't see if life was polyphyletic, or if Noah's Flood had churned up the geologic record. Words cannot describe, so I'll link you to a tree of life and you can work your way from there:
http://tolweb.org/tree/
Finally, the independent agreement of phylogenies constructed from different evidence from different disciplines speaks to the validity of the phylogenies. Phylogenies based on the physical characteristics of different organisms agree with phylogenies based on the fossil record, with phylogenies based on biogeography, with phylogenies based on genetic homologies. There is NO reason under a creation hypothesis why these trees should match, but they do. And the reason is common descent.
Here is a good explanation of how phylogenetics works:
http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/printable/Pathways.pdf
I leave finding out how the different phylogenies agree as an exercise.
Re: "Fossils of other platypus ancestors have been found. "Your a killer Massuh....... :::D
Those weren't fossils!
Those were roadkill run over on the Australian backroads, squashed flat as a pancake, and then baked hard by the desert sun.
They were only 2 months old.
DNA analysis proved that they were 4 chickens and 3 French Poodles which had been hit by a jeep.
The "teeth" that they supposedly kept until adulthood were some bridges and other denture work that fell out of the mouth of the aborigine who "found" the fossils.
In actual fact, the aboboogie was arrested because he was attempting to eat the roadkill fresh off the road.
So you see, many find themselves confused when discussing facts!
OK, Rubystars!
If the scientists have the answers, then tell me where schwartzes came from!
Colin Powell has it right, when he said "Whites in America have a real dilemma -- they believe that "all men are created equal", and at the same time are convinced that Blacks are an inferior race!".
How is it that a schwartze after 6000 years of evolution is today less intelligent than a monkey, deranged, and more violent than any other beast?
How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze has no class, no breeding, no mating, no child rearing, and loves watermelon and KFC?
How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"
It's even simpler then that... They are the missing link.OK, Rubystars!
If the scientists have the answers, then tell me where schwartzes came from!
Colin Powell has it right, when he said "Whites in America have a real dilemma -- they believe that "all men are created equal", and at the same time are convinced that Blacks are an inferior race!".
How is it that a schwartze after 6000 years of evolution is today less intelligent than a monkey, deranged, and more violent than any other beast?
How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze has no class, no breeding, no mating, no child rearing, and loves watermelon and KFC?
How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"
They're a less evolved form, without the evolutionary stresses of Europe they stayed static, unchanged for 200,000 years.
Maybe your ancestors were monkeys, but I am not descended from monkeys. I am a human who ultimately descended from Adam.Well you have always said muman... more then human so you have made you position clear already :::D..... Here in New York we have fine museums filled with all sort of fossils that really make a good case for evolution... Whatever the case I am sure it is all G-ds work.
But you can postulate all you like about missing links, it will keep you busy.
I disagree!I think you might be on to something here... :o
I think that space aliens dumped them off here to get rid of the garbage!
Their entire front temporal lobe is missing!
It's proven that when undergoing brain surgery, the doctors lift off a shvoog's skull to reveal a "blue gums" looking squirrel size brain without any convolutions on it!
It's full of purple and black pigment running all through it like discarded grape chewing gum.
Not only that!
Neuroscience reveals that unlike normal humans' brains which have a brain stem and spinal cord, the schwartze's chipmunk brain instead has a "hambone nerve" running down the back of his neck and directly connected to his penis for aiding in raping white women.
They also have this extra bone called "The Monkey's Paw of Lord Harambee" that they use to rip open Kool Cigarrette Packs from the bottom side, using their pinky fingernail, which is held erect and rigid by the Monkey's Paw Bone!
OK, Rubystars!
If the scientists have the answers, then tell me where schwartzes came from!
To beat the West to be the one..
Judaism and Evolution
I don't understand some of your answer choices.no,human and apes share the smae ancestors.but this ancestors weren't apes.
"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"
Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?
Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.evolution palyed a major part in theevolution of the races.blacks for example are still adapt for a life in the jungles or in the savvanas.that explains thei impusivness,agrresivness,and their supremacy in running and swimming.
supremacy in running and swimming.
sorry oyou right.most of the negroe ''culture'' developed inland so evolution didn't gave them swimming supremacy.supremacy in running and swimming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24411271/
You might want to rethink your stance.
Don't read about monotremes -- read about the platypus.
I don't believe that monotremes is any other than a newly devised "classification" -- a weak attempt by Darwinists to force fit species which won't "fit the rule" into some niche which previously never existed because of the fact that these creatures simply defy classification according to the Laws of Evolution.
The platypus has a duck's bill, webbed feet, a tail like a beaver, has legs attached to the sides of its body like a reptile. It lays eggs, but feeds its young with milk like a mammal, has receptors on its head which can detect electromagnetic bio-waves released by other animals, and has venomous spines on its rear feet for stinging prey and predators. It has no teeth, but grinds its food using rocks it picks up from the bottoms of streams.So what.
In other words, it appears to be totally unique, and evolved from no other species into its present form.
The actual existence of a scientific classification called "monotremes" is a mere hypothetical construct -- unproven, and without any known links which could place the platypus and anteater in the Theory of Evolution.
In addition, rarely a week goes by without scientists announcing the "discovery' of entirely new species of animals in Borneo, South American rainforests, etc...
If this be the case, then their standardized progression of the origin of species is totally without merit, because none of these new species can be accounted for in terms of from which other animals they did evolve.
What these "scientists" are in fact doing is first declaring their unchallengeable Theory of Evolution, refusing to allow anyone to question it or challenge it.
And then, as the actual facts present themselves which can not be "fit" into the puzzle, they simply "change the rules" and invent new hitherto unknown classifications in order to make everything "fit" their protocol.
Bear in mind -- these are the same "Scientists" who proclaim loudly that "THERE WAS NO EXODUS!", -- "NO PROOF" OF ANY KIND THAT HEBREWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT --
Actually I think that evolutionary biology is a separate discipline from Egyptology/Archaeology. However I think that there is a lot more room for us to debate the archaeologists because they don't really have the evidence to disprove the Biblical stories.
My problem with evolutionary theory lies in that theoretical science is entertaining, while observational science is more important although perhaps less satisfying because observations often raise questions which do not have answers
From speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him. [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"] Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.
The Lenski LTEE E. coli experiment showed that natural selecting acting on random mutation produces new information and novel function. Here is the original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day. I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this. I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.
One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".
How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze ... loves watermelon and KFC?
How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"
Maybe your ancestors were monkeys, but I am not descended from monkeys. I am a human who ultimately descended from Adam.
But you can postulate all you like about missing links, it will keep you busy.
I disagree!
I think that space aliens dumped them off here to get rid of the garbage!
Their entire front temporal lobe is missing!
It's proven that when undergoing brain surgery, the doctors lift off a shvoog's skull to reveal a "blue gums" looking squirrel size brain without any convolutions on it!
Neuroscience reveals that unlike normal humans' brains which have a brain stem and spinal cord, the schwartze's chipmunk brain instead has a "hambone nerve" running down the back of his neck and directly connected to his penis for aiding in raping white women.
Science, evolutions and scientific evolutions all were kindly and duly permitted by the G_d as a part and process of his grand design. So that they also should be scientifically studied, understood and appreciated by the mankind. The days of G_d are eons of mankind.
I don't understand some of your answer choices.no,human and apes share the smae ancestors.but this ancestors weren't apes.
"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"
Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?
Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.evolution palyed a major part in theevolution of the races.blacks for example are still adapt for a life in the jungles or in the savvanas.that explains thei impusivness,agrresivness,and their supremacy in running and swimming.
you know.there is a reason why the negroes are the garabage of humanity.Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.evolution palyed a major part in theevolution of the races.blacks for example are still adapt for a life in the jungles or in the savvanas.that explains thei impusivness,agrresivness,and their supremacy in running and swimming.
Oh please, save us your eugenics theories.
Not all blacks are skilled at running. This is limited to Kenyans and certain west africans. You have no idea what you're talking about.
QuoteFrom speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him. [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"] Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.
What is "suspicious" about Lucy? This is a well-publicized finding that developed into major disputes within archaeology and ancient history.
Quote from: Ariel Shayn
Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day. I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this. I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.
One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".
Now we're talking. Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about 6th and 7th day, by all accounts on the 7th day G-d "rested" from creating, and so man was created on the 6th day. G-d did not create anything on the 7th day and that is why we celebrate the Shabbath, and we see G-d as not only being "the Creator" but also existing as separate from the act of creation. You might refer to two accounts of creation, chapter 1 and chapter 2, but man is created the 6th day in both. But as Rav Soloveitchik explains, the 2 accounts describe different metaphysical aspects of man and the dichotomy of man's role in the world. In one sense man is the centerpiece of creation, and the creation of man is the ultimate purpose of everything else, to serve and be subjugated by man who is bequeathed dominion over the world by G-d. But on the other hand man is still subservient to G-d and merely one aspect of a variegated creation in which man has much in common with the disparate elements (including common origin - man "built from the dust of the earth" etc) such as the inorganic elements, the plant life, the animal life etc. And so man's role is also defined by his cooperation/participation in the preservation of the whole as one mere part in the symphony of creation that is truly owned by G-d. These two roles of man are described as a dichotomy in the respective chapters 1 and 2 and form man's challenge to integrate and balance, and in Rav Soloveitchik's works, constitute the existential struggle of man in the world. We can elaborate on this more as I had a series of shiurim on this subject from my rabbi in yeshiva. There are a lot of examples and proofs within the text behind this basic idea. Actually I don't know if I can commit the time to do it, but I think it may be a good idea for me to put up a series of summaries in the Torah section from my notes on this class that may be of interest to the members here.
One clear notion we must accept which has a strong basis throughout the sources to the point of being plainly self-evident is that the "6 days of creation" are not literal and do not come to explain the scientific process of G-d's creation. On the contrary, Chazal, the sages of blessed memory, are quite non-literal in their explanations and leave much room for allegorical interpretation of the "Maaseh Bereshith" the acts of creation section of the Torah since the acts of creation are beyond man's comprehension. On this topic in particular there is much more room for interpretation, and we see in the rishonim, the early medieval commentators, that in fact they took much liberty in their explanations of the metaphysical and ethical conceptions contained in these chapters, to explain very deep concepts about G-d's creation, while notably not adopting a "literalist" approach, which may have become popularized much later not only due to the influence of the notions of other religions, but as reactionary response to the very superficial notion of conflict between "science and religion" in modern times as seen or assumed by most people. Even if a reactionary formulation without much backing in the sources gains primacy and popularity due to circumstances of the day, that does not make it a true formulation.
There is absolutely NO support within the Jewish sources for the idea that the world was created 6000 (ie 5770) years ago. None. The dating of 5770 years refers to the creation of man, NOT the universe, and the Torah's definition of man is not a scientific genetic classification or limited to a physical phenotype. There certainly could have been creatures that resembled what is today known as "human" roaming around before the inbuing of Tzelem Elokim (The image of G-d) into the framework of man-like-animal ... this act constituting the creation of man.
There is much more to talk about here, and G-d willing we will discuss more.
Quote from: Ariel Shayn
Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day. I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this. I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.
One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".
Now we're talking. Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about 6th and 7th day, by all accounts on the 7th day G-d "rested" from creating, and so man was created on the 6th day. G-d did not create anything on the 7th day and that is why we celebrate the Shabbath, and we see G-d as not only being "the Creator" but also existing as separate from the act of creation. You might refer to two accounts of creation, chapter 1 and chapter 2, but man is created the 6th day in both. But as Rav Soloveitchik explains, the 2 accounts describe different metaphysical aspects of man and the dichotomy of man's role in the world. In one sense man is the centerpiece of creation, and the creation of man is the ultimate purpose of everything else, to serve and be subjugated by man who is bequeathed dominion over the world by G-d. But on the other hand man is still subservient to G-d and merely one aspect of a variegated creation in which man has much in common with the disparate elements (including common origin - man "built from the dust of the earth" etc) such as the inorganic elements, the plant life, the animal life etc. And so man's role is also defined by his cooperation/participation in the preservation of the whole as one mere part in the symphony of creation that is truly owned by G-d. These two roles of man are described as a dichotomy in the respective chapters 1 and 2 and form man's challenge to integrate and balance, and in Rav Soloveitchik's works, constitute the existential struggle of man in the world. We can elaborate on this more as I had a series of shiurim on this subject from my rabbi in yeshiva. There are a lot of examples and proofs within the text behind this basic idea. Actually I don't know if I can commit the time to do it, but I think it may be a good idea for me to put up a series of summaries in the Torah section from my notes on this class that may be of interest to the members here.
One clear notion we must accept which has a strong basis throughout the sources to the point of being plainly self-evident is that the "6 days of creation" are not literal and do not come to explain the scientific process of G-d's creation. On the contrary, Chazal, the sages of blessed memory, are quite non-literal in their explanations and leave much room for allegorical interpretation of the "Maaseh Bereshith" the acts of creation section of the Torah since the acts of creation are beyond man's comprehension. On this topic in particular there is much more room for interpretation, and we see in the rishonim, the early medieval commentators, that in fact they took much liberty in their explanations of the metaphysical and ethical conceptions contained in these chapters, to explain very deep concepts about G-d's creation, while notably not adopting a "literalist" approach, which may have become popularized much later not only due to the influence of the notions of other religions, but as reactionary response to the very superficial notion of conflict between "science and religion" in modern times as seen or assumed by most people. Even if a reactionary formulation without much backing in the sources gains primacy and popularity due to circumstances of the day, that does not make it a true formulation.
There is absolutely NO support within the Jewish sources for the idea that the world was created 6000 (ie 5770) years ago. None. The dating of 5770 years refers to the creation of man, NOT the universe, and the Torah's definition of man is not a scientific genetic classification or limited to a physical phenotype. There certainly could have been creatures that resembled what is today known as "human" roaming around before the inbuing of Tzelem Elokim (The image of G-d) into the framework of man-like-animal ... this act constituting the creation of man.
There is much more to talk about here, and G-d willing we will discuss more.
:::D :::D :::D :::D
Of course G-d took Shabbat off. You are right, I meant chapters one and two.
Were there people before Adam?
The Talmud (Chagigah 14a; Avos de-Rabbi Noson 31:3) speaks about "974 generations" before the world was created, but it explains that the people who would have lived in those "generations" were in fact not physically created, or were quickly destroyed. The 974 generations are based on Psalms 105:8, which can be interpreted as meaning that the Torah was given after 1000 generations; since Moses was the 26th generation after Adam, there must have been 974 generations before Adam.
Re: "New information does not undermine anything because the system itself was never built on the premise that there can be no outside information or no data that we have not yet determined or arrived at. "
One should never end a sentence with a preposition -- especially a compound sentence with four different subjects, and five separate "double negative" verb structures.
Improper syntax and grammar notwithstanding, such an impassioned defense of Evolutionary Theory is but a verbatim repetition of all the eloquent oratory with which the contemporary candidate for a degree is expected to "regurgitate on demand" as a prerequisite to proving one's "worthiness" for advancement in such dubious fields of academia as "Middle Eastern Studies", "Womens' Studies", "Gender Studies", "Black Studies", "Latino Studies", "Peace Studies", "Conflict Resolution", "International Affairs", "Gay/Bi-Sexual/Lesbian/and Trans-Gendered Studies", etc... .
I take no personal issue with those choosing to march in lockstep agreement with scientists whose dogma teaches that Israelites evolved from Negroes in the African Motherland.
I fully realize that to earn a grade point level of "B" grade or above demands joining in consensus with other university faculty who find Torah to be the stuff of primitive superstition and ridicule.
Admission to both Graduate Study and Post-Graduate Study is routinely denied to anyone daring to express even minimal skepticism in Evolutionary Theory, and Ph.D.'s who eagerly compete for "research grants" understand well that the money to support one's family and self are offered with the caveat that objectivity and morality all take a back seat to academic subservience in support of the Globalist Agenda, Big Pharma, and proponents of Obamacare.
For centuries, the credo "Publish, or perish!" was long the guideline for life in the Academy.
Sadly, this guideline has been today replaced with "Publish that which supports the corporatist/fascist status quo and its obscene obsession with profits, and be willing to alter data and misuse statistics in support of that end, or The Department Chair will gladly outsource the grant money provided to the university by private corporatist industry and the military to your "peers" in India and Communist China, who "know what is expected from them" and will do it for far less money.
Admission to both Graduate Study and Post-Graduate Study is routinely denied to anyone daring to express even minimal skepticism in Evolutionary Theory, and Ph.D.'s who eagerly compete for "research grants" understand well that the money to support one's family and self are offered with the caveat that objectivity and morality all take a back seat to academic subservience in support of the Globalist Agenda, Big Pharma, and proponents of Obamacare.
For centuries, the credo "Publish, or perish!" was long the guideline for life in the Academy.
Sadly, this guideline has been today replaced with "Publish that which supports the corporatist/fascist status quo and its obscene obsession with profits, and be willing to alter data and misuse statistics in support of that end, or The Department Chair will gladly outsource the grant money provided to the university by private corporatist industry and the military to your "peers" in India and Communist China, who "know what is expected from them" and will do it for far less money.
QuoteFrom speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him. [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"] Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.
What is "suspicious" about Lucy? This is a well-publicized finding that developed into major disputes within archaeology and ancient history.
I seem to remember that Lucy's hips needed to be smashed, broken apart, cut, chiseled, sanded, buffed, and totally reconstructed unlike they were found in order to be assembled in a way for her to walk like modern humans do, as opposed to how chimps and apes do [which is how her hip was actually found]. I think I watched this on PBS by a man named Dr. Lovejoy. If I remember correctly, also this skeleton only had 1/2 a hip to begin with, so mashing up the one half hip which was actually found into pieces and then putting it back together in a different way to suit the desires of the theorist really left me taken back, and puzzled why people would see value in what this man postulated; could not any skeleton be smashed apart and reworked into "the missing link"?
There's a good reason why admission to upper level studies might be denied to self-professed creationists. It's because if you believe in a young earth, where species appeared at the same time (within the span of a week), then it means you didn't understand the material in the lower level studies. This is not some kind of exclusionist thing, but a scientist is supposed to look at the evidence, not at how the evidence makes them feel.
I do not believe that these theories can be proven. I have seen several of these theories proven false over time.
Putting all your faith in man and his understanding of science is a foolish thing to do.
I have all the respect for scientists, if they truly are seeking the truth. But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge. You may think 'mad scientists' are rare but I think that many, many scientists have a 'mad scientist' deep inside...
Science is a tool like a hammer or a microscope, allowing us to accomplish a goal. If we intend to use science to become like G-d himself, then we too are guilty of the same sin that Adam and Chava made when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
Boy Dr. Dan, you need to work on making your options a little less biased; especially the magic wand comment; that might come across as a bit offensive to some here.
I don't see why Evolution can't be compatible with creationism. I don't agree with those who say its either one or the other, and thats that.
This can expand to so many other things in life. most of what happens in history follows the laws of nature, physics, genetics, etc, but that does mean that there can't be divine intervention as well.
But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.
The reality about evolution or how humans and other animals and plants came to be is that no one will ever really actually know unless they go through time to witness it.
The bottom line is that Hashem created the Universe and however He did it, He did it perfectly.
The theory of evolution is just theory..it doesn't make it truth. As time goes on, more answers will be found.
I do believe that all living things started out as a single cell and that over time branched out from a common ancestor into different things.
The reality about evolution or how humans and other animals and plants came to be is that no one will ever really actually know unless they go through time to witness it.
That's like saying if you find a dead body with a butcher knife sticking out of it that you can't really tell if it was stabbed unless you go back in time.QuoteThe bottom line is that Hashem created the Universe and however He did it, He did it perfectly.
Ok true.QuoteThe theory of evolution is just theory..it doesn't make it truth. As time goes on, more answers will be found.
The other answers will add to our understanding of evolution, but it will not replace it.QuoteI do believe that all living things started out as a single cell and that over time branched out from a common ancestor into different things.
You don't have to believe it, you have evidence that only needs acceptance, not belief.
But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.
i know i don't have the most wonderful spelling in the world.but why he included me in that post in the group of the ones who want to control the world.i want to improve the world not to control it.But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.
dnmt litmit yourslf. thnk scientifical.. or the ballcks wil gaeight you.
But many, ben m included, wants to be able to control the world with their knowledge.sorry about this but wtf? i don't want to control the worl with my knowledge.i want to improve the world with my knowledge.