JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zelhar on May 27, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
-
My comments are in red within the article. I can't respect a scientist who is making a mockery out of his profession.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/201303/scientist-evolution-debate-will-soon-be-history
Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey predicts end is near on debate over evolution
By Associated Press, Published: May 26
NEW YORK — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”
“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”
MY COMMENT ABOUT THIS: If Leakey was to be true to his theories, then the logical conclusion would be that no we are not all Africans, some groups of our specie evolved further and other groups may have evolved in a different direction. We are not all the same. Also note the logical gap, or rather illogical jump with the statement about stages of development of culture. That has nothing to do with evolution and as a general rule it is not always true that the stages are "interactive" and even if they do what does it mean ? Does it mean a high tech society and a jungle dwelling hunter gatherer society are at the same stage as long as they are interacting ?
Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.
His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic documentary on his work at Turkana aired this month on public television.
Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed “much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.”
Now that I know what time of family business he runs and who is funding him I have to question every finding his scam claims to unearth.
On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.
“If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you’ve got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena,” Leakey says. “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one.”
What a Renaissance man, he is an expert in anthropology, sociology, as well as in the environmental and climate science. Now I have no choice but to believe in global warming and start building an ark.
Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.
“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.
Science is not nonsense nor evolution, but Leakey is doing junk science that is not an attempt to discover truth but rather creating a perception that matches his atheism and political believes.
“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It’s not covered by Genesis. There’s no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any God.”
Leakey is mixing science and religion (his religion- atheism). Genesis, the Torah, is not a science book and it doesn't deal with evolution nor with quantum physics.
Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.
“If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that,” he said.
“I see no reason why you shouldn’t go through your life thinking if you’re a good citizen, you’ll get a better future in the afterlife ....”
Patronizing atheist to the end.
Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as “Turkana Boy,” the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.
In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya, heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted worldwide headlines.
In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was never proven.
About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island, a part of the State University of New York, as a guest lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the faculty. It was a process that took about two years; he relented after returning to the campus to accept an honorary degree.
Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted professor on its faculty.
“It was much easier to work with a new university that didn’t have a 200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League schools that you couldn’t really change what they did and what they thought,” he said.
Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond, and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood.
Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser that sold for nearly $20,000.
Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.
“We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive.”
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
Richard Leakey's head is Leakey.
-
Richard Leakey's head is Leakey.
Funny, I was sure you would instantly agree with the claim that we are all Africans.
-
I think he's wrong about the pure out of Africa hypothesis. I think there's still room to consider multiregionalism as a factor.
-
I think he's wrong about the pure out of Africa hypothesis. I think there's still room to consider multiregionalism as a factor.
If we are one specie, homo-sapience, then we must originate from a single place.
-
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."
I'm not going to start calling the Irish & the French Africans just to pander to blacks who don't want to set aside their differences with other people.
Blacks tell us they're equal to everyone else, and until they say otherwise, I'm setting equal expectations for them.
-
If we are one specie, homo-sapience, then we must originate from a single place.
From what I've been able to read were several waves of migration from the African continent. I think it's possible that Europeans and Asians have admixture with Neanderthal genes (From Europe and the Middle East) and possibly Erectus (in the Middle East and east Asia) too as later waves came out and mixed with earlier waves, so that the differences would be more pronounced than if the latest waves came out and there was no mixture at all and the differences are only down to environment. I think it's interesting how when I look at skulls of the three major races that Asians and Europeans look fairly similar and African skulls look different even to a lay person's eyes.
Since their ancestors stayed in Africa, they would not have changed as much as those who left to adapt to colder northern climates and mixed with earlier waves in those regions that had done the same thing.
Apparently one of the scientists who promotes this idea is Alan Templeton, here's a good article about it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html
Waves of migration (at least 3 according to him) came out and mixed with earlier waves. It's sort of a mix between OOA and multiregionalism but basically it means no, we're not all identical to black Africans. Basically Africans developed down their own path while those in other regions developed down their own path to become quite different from each other. Non-African populations have genes from other sources (such as big brained Neanderthals) and were more cold-adapted, leading to things like the need for forward planning, better cooperation between individuals, more inventiveness, etc.
-
I agree 100% with what Ruby just said, but how does this balance with the bible?
-
I agree 100% with what Ruby just said, but how does this balance with the bible?
I believe that some (not all) of the hominids were fully and spiritually human in the sense of their relationship with God. I believe God created us but used these processes as part of creation. It's like how all the elements except hydrogen and helium have to be made in stars or in supernovae. That's the only way you get any other elements. God used those stars to produce those elements necessary for life, and had them come together.
I recommend reading Rare Earth. I just finished it and it shows how unique earth really is and how it almost hints at design (and while I think that we can infer design, we can't demonstrate it conclusively, as I mentioned in a previous thread). Nevertheless I think it was really neat how everything with the earth from our type of star, the placement of objects in the solar system, etc. is just right for life. I think there's definitely room there for a Creator. This isn't something that can be scientifically established, but the door is open for belief.
-
HaShem has allowed evil people like this to rise to a respected status in the evolution community for a reason, in order to show all decent people that evolutionists, like those who promote man-made climate change, are operating with an agenda to discredit religion and not purely scientific observation.
You have a really good point here Dan.
This is why I don't participate in any those types of forums anymore right now. I felt like my contributions were being used to push an agenda that I completely disagreed with and that was evil. If I did participate again then I probably wouldn't be very popular due to the fact that I would be stating how I felt about that evil agenda to push militant atheism on people. There are a lot of militant atheists who do everything they can to push people to think believing in God is illogical and wrong. They commit blasphemy by calling God derogatory names and they are almost always very left leaning.
They did what they could to try to destroy my faith but it didn't work and that's when things got ugly for me and they showed how much they hated me (well, not me personally really, just that they hated Bible believers). One thing they said was that I was no better than a 'fundy' because my beliefs in God and God's role in creation. The fact that I accepted standard scientific explanations for things didn't change that in the slightest. It was pure hate, pure viciousness. I think what the atheists really hated was God and they projected that hate onto me because I wouldn't back down.
-
By his rationale, we are all monkeys too, and for that matter, lower mammals, since we may have came from the same species in Africa... and any difference between me and a gerbil is just 'superficial'
-
By his rationale, we are all monkeys too, and for that matter, lower mammals, since we may have came from the same species in Africa... and any difference between me and a gerbil is just 'superficial'
That's the left wing mindset of atheists like him. Extreme liberals don't see humans as being inherently better or more worthy of consideration than animals. I cringe when I think of how some people have justified abortion by arguing that a fetus is not any more sentient or intelligent than a pig and that we have no problems with slaughtering pigs. The rebuttal that "The baby is human!" seems to hold no weight with these militant atheists. They see no inherent value in being human.
A while back PETA was running advertisements comparing chickens to Holocaust victims. They really saw that as completely morally equivalent. They thought they were making a valid moral point. They didn't even register it in their minds that they were dehumanizing the real victims of the real Holocaust and deeply insulting them.
-
I think many self titled liberals are just not mature enough, or rather too dogmatic with their atheism and progressive beliefs, to admit that there is a difference between races, and that there is a difference between males and females. And while there is a difference, it doesn't give special privileges to some above others, and every individual in society should have equal rights and obligations (of course with some exceptions like mentally retarded people). In fact when progressives impose affirmative action they try to sort of square the circle (with a ruler and compass only), they try to prove that everyone is the same which is simply not true.
-
I think many self titled liberals are just not mature enough, or rather too dogmatic with their atheism and progressive beliefs, to admit that there is a difference between races, and that there is a difference between males and females. And while there is a difference, it doesn't give special privileges to some above others, and every individual in society should have equal rights and obligations (of course with some exceptions like mentally retarded people). In fact when progressives impose affirmative action they try to sort of square the circle (with a ruler and compass only), they try to prove that everyone is the same which is simply not true.
I think it's ironic how evolution is based on variation+selection and yet these left wingers want to deny that variation really exists at all.
-
I agree 100% with what Ruby just said, but how does this balance with the bible?
The bible is a book of morality; not a science book.
-
I think it's ironic how evolution is based on variation+selection and yet these left wingers want to deny that variation really exists at all.
you're right, never thought of that.
-
I think it's ironic how evolution is based on variation+selection and yet these left wingers want to deny that variation really exists at all.
"If there's one thing our totalitarian overlords hate, it's coming across as the totalitarian overlords they really are." Greenfield Evolution as a theory as written by Charles Darwin's grandfather served to prove why the monarchy had simply evolved as rulers, and others as peasants. Eugenics complicated the mix, and then tolerance came about, saying the superior races/breeds should give an advantage to the lesser ones, because it's not fair. This is why the same channel on the zombie tube can promote a life of crime to blacks, while accusing the rest of the world as being the ones doing wrong.
-
I don't believe in inferior/superior races. I think that races of people are superior at certain things and inferior at other things. We're not all the same or equally adept in all areas. That doesn't make one inherently better or worse than others as a blanket rule in all things.
-
I don't believe in inferior/superior races. I think that races of people are superior at certain things and inferior at other things. We're not all the same or equally adept in all areas. That doesn't make one inherently better or worse than others as a blanket rule in all things.
...that's still eugenics. Put a black guy from birth in a christian setting with no other black people to show how gangster he is to, and poof he's intelligent and normal. Let a muslim or Obuma's pastor raise him, and he's a monster. I greatly dislike the term sub-human. Left to our own vices, we're pretty bad without torah and other spiritual books to teach us what's right. Worship the devil, and you're a monster. Arabs become inventors, though pretty much never as muslims, black people become righteous politicians, though pretty much never in the ghetto. As far as Jews, we've got the whole spectrum of colors, like me. It is not race that makes greatness in any aspect, but the G-d of Israel.
-
...that's still eugenics. Put a black guy from birth in a christian setting with no other black people to show how gangster he is to, and poof he's intelligent and normal. Let a muslim or Obuma's pastor raise him, and he's a monster.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Even black children raised in white families in white neighborhoods often display measurable differences from the other non-black children raised in the same family. This doesn't mean they're inferior it just means they're different.
I don't believe in eugenics though. I think that almost everybody has the right to have children if they want to (I say almost because there could be some cases where someone might make a point where a particular individual person should not, like a pedophile or a serial killer, but this is not based on race or heritage).
I greatly dislike the term sub-human.
I didn't call anyone subhuman in this thread though some individuals have certainly earned that term.
Left to our own vices, we're pretty bad without torah and other spiritual books to teach us what's right. Worship the devil, and you're a monster. Arabs become inventors, though pretty much never as muslims, black people become righteous politicians, though pretty much never in the ghetto. As far as Jews, we've got the whole spectrum of colors, like me. It is not race that makes greatness in any aspect, but the G-d of Israel.
Good points. Without the Bible everyone's a barbarian.
-
Evolution shall be broken in to two segments:
(1) General theory of Evolution
(2) Special theory of Evolution
Both of these segments shall be connected up by a 'missing link', which is yet to be invented by these rEvolutionaries.
-
Evolution shall be broken in to two segments:
(1) General theory of Evolution
(2) Special theory of Evolution
Both of these segments shall be connected up by a 'missing link', which is yet to be invented by these rEvolutionaries.
Brilliant.
-
I have no issues with evolution... but when evolutionists insist everything is completely by accident, that's where they lose me.
Also, when evolutionists use their rationale to say that we are equal with lower mammals because of their theory, that's when they are motivated more by politics than science.
-
I don't think that's necessarily true. Even black children raised in white families in white neighborhoods often display measurable differences from the other non-black children raised in the same family. This doesn't mean they're inferior it just means they're different.
-let them watch the same t.v., and that's enough. Add some ghetto friends, and it's done for. If someone's father and all his father's only ever survived in a swamp, the kid will never have the same potential for intelligence as someone with scholars for many generations, but in terms of moral development, there is nothing intricately different about black people that affects morality, just the culture and believing in the devil.
I don't believe in eugenics though. I think that almost everybody has the right to have children if they want to (I say almost because there could be some cases where someone might make a point where a particular individual person should not, like a pedophile or a serial killer, but this is not based on race or heritage).
-Eugenics is more than forced sterilization, which I see killing the person as always the better option when it comes to these serial pedophile killer types.
I didn't call anyone subhuman in this thread though some individuals have certainly earned that term.
- I know, it's just the concept, and technically if you do worship the devil you become a sub-human, like muslims that rape and be-head seven year olds.
Good points. Without the Bible everyone's a barbarian.
- There's worse then barbarians if they believe a satanic book. In a weird way I might be too stubborn to be thankful for, everything I hear from satanic books always confirms why G-d and his Torah have been right all along. The stubbornness is me not wanting to accept Jews and barbarians is worse than if the world was Jews and satanists.
-
If we are one specie, homo-sapience, then we must originate from a single place.
The out of africa theory has a competitor today, and the competing hypothesis grows in popularity.
-
The out of africa theory has a competitor today, and the competing hypothesis grows in popularity.
Do you mean what Rubystars mentioned, that Homo Sapience mixed with some other humanoids to create the modern population in Eurasia ?
-
... I never met another humanoid.
-
... I never met another humanoid.
For lack of better terms, humanity used to be a little more "diverse" than it is today. The neanderthals and erectus were human (they used tools and fire and are thought to have been capable of speech, and neanderthals at least wore clothing and made spears and specialized stone tools too) but they were anatomically different from what we would consider 'modern' humans, which lived along side them for some periods of time and may have mixed somewhat with them.
It wasn't too terribly long ago, only about 30,000 years ago. To put that in perspective it was around 15,000 years ago that agricultural societies starting springing up, so about twice as long.
-
My guess is every time 'modern' humans came into contact with Neanderthals they exterminated them, probably making BBQ of the men and the children and keeping some of the women as mates.
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
-
For lack of better terms, humanity used to be a little more "diverse" than it is today. The neanderthals and erectus were human (they used tools and fire and are thought to have been capable of speech, and neanderthals at least wore clothing and made spears and specialized stone tools too) but they were anatomically different from what we would consider 'modern' humans, which lived along side them for some periods of time and may have mixed somewhat with them.
It wasn't too terribly long ago, only about 30,000 years ago. To put that in perspective it was around 15,000 years ago that agricultural societies starting springing up, so about twice as long.
Amino acid degeneration disproves the theory of 30,000 years of existence. Roman legionaries used to carry half their body weight for marathons of marching, and its plain to see cellular degeneration anywhere. I studied evolution and about 99% was outright disproved, and the rest was so wacky that there was no way to make a test to verify it. C14 readers see fossils age at several million years a month, because at a certain point this radioactive isotope does run out and the readers give near-infinite readings from 3000 years onward guaranteed.
The whole point of "agricultur[al]e" and "socie[ties]ty" springing up as our own ideas is a direct attack, saying that advancement, values that allow a group to survive and peaceful co-existence worked just fine before any G-d, that we we're doing just fine without any G-d, and that we do come from a lesser version of ourselves, so it is us that makes us advance and evolve, and not G-d creating us. It's to make up a system without G-d, then pretend it could work.
Everyone of these early humans turns up as a pig jaw on a man, a deformed skull, and a myriad of other hoaxes that you can't see without laughing at the maniacs that swear by them.
15,000 years, 30,000 years was before the Torah says G-d taught Adam. How did they figure out how to survive? The only way no G-d works is if they evolved from a lesser being that knew how to eat from early on. But then you've just swallowed the whole load that can never be proven, and the more information on it is available the more evident the absurdity of the mere concept is.
-
LCZ I can see you base your beliefs in the framework of young earth creationism and I won't try to convince you out of it because I don't want to damage your faith. I don't agree with any of the YEC claims but that's something you're going to have to decide for yourself. I've never heard of this "amino acid degeneration" stuff. I don't know if you're talking about telomeres or something else. If you choose to be a YEC then it's not hurting anybody but I'm not going to believe in a young earth.
-
My guess is every time 'modern' humans came into contact with Neanderthals they exterminated them, probably making BBQ of the men and the children and keeping some of the women as mates.
The last part would be really significant if they were interfertile.
-
I'm not going to believe in a young earth.
Life. The earth came before, chronologically, in the beginning. No time frame is provided, but Torah does not disagree with an old earth, just young life. YEC you think I'm part of a group or something lol?
-
The last part would be really significant if they were interfertile.
Yes that was my intention. Because the current genetic evidence seems to suggest that The population of Eurasia and the Americas got some percentage (less then 10% I think) of their DNA from other humanoids. And at the same time it seems that the other humanoids were wiped out by the modern humans. It is very reasonable to assume that tribes of modern humans wouldn't suffer a competing group in their territory be it fully human or human-like.
-
Yes that was my intention. Because the current genetic evidence seems to suggest that The population of Eurasia and the Americas got some percentage (less then 10% I think) of their DNA from other humanoids. And at the same time it seems that the other humanoids were wiped out by the modern humans. It is very reasonable to assume that tribes of modern humans wouldn't suffer a competing group in their territory be it fully human or human-like.
like nephilim?
-
like nephilim?
I haven't thought of that even though I have long been fascinated with the nephilim. But they are supposed to be super human, stronger and more advanced. they took human females as mates and perhaps set themselves in fiefdoms, enslaving local humans.
-
I haven't thought of that even though I have long been fascinated with the nephilim. But they are supposed to be super human, stronger and more advanced. they took human females as mates and perhaps set themselves in fiefdoms, enslaving local humans.
They were only imprisoned for a time, so it's possible, but you can't know for sure. They also used wacky DNA tests to "prove" that fakestinians were the real inhabitants of Israel, and that Jews were Europeans that were pretending. And to "prove" the gay gene. Any of these DNA tests should be under serious scrutiny, especially where the researcher's conclusions are concerned.
-
Regarding the Jewish view of Nephlim:
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/289/Q3/
Dear Rabbi,
What are the "Nephilim" mentioned in the Torah?
Dear Glenn Slocum,
The Nephilim are mentioned twice in the Torah (Genesis 6, Numbers 13). "Nephilim" means "the fallen ones." They were people of giant stature. It is not clear how large they were, but were large enough to scare other people. The Targum Yerushalmi, which is a Midrash, explains that they were Angels who descended to the Earth. According to this they were called fallen ones because they fell from their heavenly stature. The Ramban explains otherwise, that they were the other children of Adam. Because Adam, the First Man, was the handiwork of G-d, his children were of greater physical stature than their descendants. Because these people were so close to the Creator, they knew that they had no grandfather, they should have been spiritually elevated. Because they didn't live up to their potential they were considered "fallen ones."
See also : http://www.ravkooktorah.org/BRAYSHIT60.htm
The Nephilim
Immediately before the story of Noah and a corrupted world, the Torah makes a passing mention of Nephilim, powerful giants who lived at that time.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. ... They were the mightiest ones ever, men of renown." (Gen. 6:4)
Who were these titans? Why does the Torah call them Nephilim?
The Midrash explains that they were called Nephilim because they fell (naphlu) and brought about the world's downfall (nephilah). These giants were catalysts for a great moral collapse of society.
Studying Foreign Languages
In 1906, fifteen-year-old Tzvi Yehuda Kook asked his father whether he should devote time to learning other languages. In his response, Rav Kook analyzed the relative importance of expertise in languages and rhetoric:
"We should aspire to help others, both our own people and all of humanity, as much as possible. Certainly, our influence will increase as we gain competence in various languages and speaking styles. ... But if perfecting these skills will come at the expense of analytic study, then this will reduce the true intellectual content in one's contribution to the world."
Some people mistake proficiency in many languages for intellectual greatness. This is not the case. Linguistic talents are merely tools. Genuine perceptiveness and intellectual insight are a function of how well one has established the foundations of one's own inner integrity.
To demonstrate his point, Rav Kook noted that the great Nephilim who brought about the world's moral collapse were "anshei shem." Usually translated as 'men of renown,' this phrase literally means 'men of names,' or 'men of words.' They were great leaders, skilled in the arts of persuasion and rhetoric. But their talents were an empty shell, devoid of inner content. On the contrary, they used their superficial eloquence for unscrupulous purposes.
It is interesting to contrast the Nephilim and their highly-developed oratorical skills with the individual responsible for bringing the Torah’s teachings to the world. The highest level of prophecy was transmitted through a man who testified about himself that he was not a man of words, but "heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue" (Ex. 4:10). Moses was not talented in rhetoric and lacked confidence in his communication skills. Nonetheless, his moral impact on the world is without equal in the history of mankind.
-
In Israel Peres, Rabin, Aba Eben and their generation were called (are called with peres) favorably "The last of the generation of nephilim". But now I think it suits them because they were such an abysmal failure and didn't lived up to their potential.
-
They were only imprisoned for a time, so it's possible, but you can't know for sure. They also used wacky DNA tests to "prove" that fakestinians were the real inhabitants of Israel, and that Jews were Europeans that were pretending. And to "prove" the gay gene. Any of these DNA tests should be under serious scrutiny, especially where the researcher's conclusions are concerned.
actually, the DNA evidence seems to be in our favour. It does show Jews as being native to the middle east. genes regarding homosexuality are yet to be found.
-
Life. The earth came before, chronologically, in the beginning. No time frame is provided, but Torah does not disagree with an old earth, just young life. YEC you think I'm part of a group or something lol?
You can't really separate the two logically because older layers of rock contain older types of life remains, and younger layers of rock contain remains of later-existing life.
YEC stands for young earth creationist. Since you don't believe life was around for more than a few thousand years my thought is you must have been listening to some of their teachings to get that idea.
-
You can't really separate the two logically because older layers of rock contain older types of life remains, and younger layers of rock contain remains of later-existing life.
YEC stands for young earth creationist. Since you don't believe life was around for more than a few thousand years my thought is you must have been listening to some of their teachings to get that idea.
Its sounds like a star-trek convention exercise club. And take a wild guess as to who said it before them.
-
It appears that Nephilim were some ancient class of superior persons, who were dissolved and disappeared while running in the race of some type of primordial communism. It is like the future generations saying that Nephilims roamed in the west till the rule of George Bush. Then after they disappeared.
-
It appears that Nephilim were some ancient class of superior persons, who were dissolved and disappeared while running in the race of some type of primordial communism. It is like the future generations saying that Nephilims roamed in the west till the rule of George Bush. Then after they disappeared.
half demon half man, read the book of enoch.
-
half demon half man, read the book of enoch.
That is not a part of Jewish scriptures. It is actually Apocryphal writing...
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=283
What is the Book of Enoch?
The Book of Enoch bears the name of the Patriarch Enoch, great-grandfather of Noah, and consists of discourses on apocalyptic and cosmological subjects. Two such books are extant; both of them can be dated to Second Temple times. Both were probably originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but were translated into Greek, and then into Ethiopic and Slavonic, respectively. For more details about the aggadic and apocryphal literature on Enoch, and about the two Books of Enoch, see Vol. 6 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, cols. 793-799.
http://www.rabbiwein.com/The-Book-of-Enochbr-The-Hebrew-Apocrypha-P857.html
The most mystical of the Apocrypha, this book was written to explain what happened when "G-d took Enoch." With descriptions of Heaven, angels, and the Messianic era, this book was unfortunately adopted by the Christian Church and its text was doctored. Because of this, the Jews now reject it, but its supernatural themes will undoubtedly fascinate all listeners.
Also, according to Jewish belief there are not 'Demons'.... All the angels are created by Hashem, for good or bad...
For an explanation of 'demons' see http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-date/2010/11/?p=3752
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-date/2010/06/?p=3660
The Apocrypha
Question: Can anyone tell me anything about the Book of Jubilees (the Little Genesis/Apocolypse of Moses), the I and II Book of Adam, the Book of Noah, and the Book of Enoch? I understand a Rabbi’s main focus is within the Torah, but somebody has to know something of the ancient scrolls.
Answer: The Apocrypha are books that were deemed to be unsubstantiated and containing errors by the Men of the Great Assembly who decided on which books would be included in the Canon. Of the books of the Apocrypha, the Book of Maccabees (the Hasmonean Scroll) is the only one that is sometimes referenced for its historical information. Judaism pretty much ignores all of the others.
All the Best,
Rabbi Azriel Schreiber
According to some Jewish sources it appears that Enoch may have become the Arch-Angel Metatron:
http://blog.kblh.org/?p=16
Metatron - Enoch
Q: Was Enoch turned into the angel Metatron?
A: Chanoch (Enoch) was a great Tzaddik according to most sources, he was a shoemaker and with each stitch he united the worlds and Hashem, so when the world turned further evil, Hashem removed him from the world, alive, and turned him into the angel Metatron, who is so Holy we do not pronounce his name.
We just say the first two letters Mem Tes or some say Metat.
The angels in heaven were at first appalled to see a human “young man” come to heaven, so Hashem protected him and elevated him to a high level, so it appears that even other angels serve under him. In Kabbalah he is called a Na’ar, a young man, relative to the old ages of his time, since he was removed from the world. Mem Tes has many alternate names in the Kabbalah books. He is talked about frequently in the Heichalos literature, which is early kabbalistical writings of the names of the chambers and angels in heaven.
He is often connected with the world of Yetsirah, formation, and acts as the masculine figure in that world.
Some Tzaddikim have merited to have Mem Tes reveal himself to them and teach them Torah. When the four Rabbis entered the Orchard they saw Mem Tes and some of them became confused from this and lost their way, except for Rabbi Akiva. The famous Book of Enoch in the Apocrypha was not included into Torah even though the Christians put it in their biblical writings. we do not use it or rely on it. It was written from borrowed sources from the Midrash, Heichalos etc.
The other person who was turned into an angel was Eliyahu Hanavi, Elijah the prophet.
-
No demons? Then who works for the devil? All this trouble by one shiny cherub?
-
No demons? Then who works for the devil? All this trouble by one shiny cherub?
Again, the Jewish idea of Satan is not the same as the Christian concept of the 'Devil'. Satan is the Angel of Death and the Evil Inclination. If you are interested in what has been written about this topic I will post more in the Jewish section some day soon. This indeed is a very deep topic and much can be learned from the Book of Iyov/Job...
Here is a bit of this idea:
http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/shelach65.htm
Evil inclination
As the Talmud explains (Bava Basra 16a) the Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death are all one and the same. He first comes to test and challenge the person. If the person fails and does wrong he will be the accuser in the Heavenly Court and eventually will be the punishing angel of death to meet out the punishment. In the beginning of the Book of Job, it is related how the Satan received permission from G'd to test the righteous Job with extreme suffering. Our evil inclination is an angel of G'd created to test and challenge us in order to help us to grow. No one is tested beyond their capabilities. Rather each person's evil inclination is tailor made to a person's abilities and strengths (see Avoda Zara 3a and Midrash Rabba Shemos 34:1).
New tests and tactics
The Talmud (Kidushin 30b) explains that the evil inclination of a person renews itself daily with new tests and new tactics all according to a person's situation and circumstance. Rav Moshe Chaim Luzatto (The Path of the Just, Chapter 1) writes that every situation that a person encounters is a test. On the one hand, poverty is a test; on the other, affluence is a test. Similarly, tranquility is a test and so is suffering. Luzatto further explains (The Ways of G'd, Part II, Ch.3) that in the same way any character trait is a test for a person. There are situations where mercifulness is a test and other situations where cruelty is a test. As our sages say (Midrash Koheles 7:33), the one who shows mercy to a cruel person will eventually be cruel to a merciful person. In one situation the evil inclination may use a person's ego to fail through pride. In another, it will diminish a person's self-esteem and bring a person to depression. Although in general modesty and low profile is the way of the Torah, this does not apply in every situation. As we find in Chronicles 2:17:6 where King Yehoshafot is praised for being proud walking in the ways of G'd.
-
To me, it doesn't matter if evolution or revolution or hobojovolution created what we have today. What is amazing to me is how every living thing and nonliving thing in this world is perfectly made and that everything around us might as well be considered perfect accidents or perfect coincidences. I'm sorry. These atheists are dummies. Everything we have here couldn't be a perfect accident. There is a Creator. And that creator is Gd. The same one that gave the Torah not just to Moses but all the Jewish people, who witnessed this on Sinai. And I know this to be true because Jews today carry on the unique traditions commanded to then thousands of years ago. I know thus to be true because we have survived while being the weakling and minority. I know this because Judaism did not stem out from other religions before it. In fact Judaism is the opposite to more ancient religions and even different to many of today's religions. Furthermore, Gd and his Torah to us is so real that Jews would rather die than forsake Gd and do the opposite. Only self hating traitors wouldn't know any better.
So screw atheism. Only people who believe in the real CREATOR will live and die by Him and not by those who will try to strip it away from us.
-
AMEN!!!!!! :dance: :)
-
That is not a part of Jewish scriptures. It is actually Apocryphal writing...
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=283
http://www.rabbiwein.com/The-Book-of-Enochbr-The-Hebrew-Apocrypha-P857.html
Also, according to Jewish belief there are not 'Demons'.... All the angels are created by Hashem, for good or bad...
For an explanation of 'demons' see http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-date/2010/11/?p=3752
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-date/2010/06/?p=3660
According to some Jewish sources it appears that Enoch may have become the Arch-Angel Metatron:
http://blog.kblh.org/?p=16
Metatron - Enoch
Q: Was Enoch turned into the angel Metatron?
A: Chanoch (Enoch) was a great Tzaddik according to most sources, he was a shoemaker and with each stitch he united the worlds and Hashem, so when the world turned further evil, Hashem removed him from the world, alive, and turned him into the angel Metatron, who is so Holy we do not pronounce his name.
We just say the first two letters Mem Tes or some say Metat.
The angels in heaven were at first appalled to see a human “young man” come to heaven, so Hashem protected him and elevated him to a high level, so it appears that even other angels serve under him. In Kabbalah he is called a Na’ar, a young man, relative to the old ages of his time, since he was removed from the world. Mem Tes has many alternate names in the Kabbalah books. He is talked about frequently in the Heichalos literature, which is early kabbalistical writings of the names of the chambers and angels in heaven.
He is often connected with the world of Yetsirah, formation, and acts as the masculine figure in that world.
Some Tzaddikim have merited to have Mem Tes reveal himself to them and teach them Torah. When the four Rabbis entered the Orchard they saw Mem Tes and some of them became confused from this and lost their way, except for Rabbi Akiva. The famous Book of Enoch in the Apocrypha was not included into Torah even though the Christians put it in their biblical writings. we do not use it or rely on it. It was written from borrowed sources from the Midrash, Heichalos etc.
The other person who was turned into an angel was Eliyahu Hanavi, Elijah the prophet.
So what about demoic posession? You believe G-d is the king of all nations of this world? Was G-d ruling over the pagan nations in Israel of old? Do you believe that spirits are attracted to and attach themselves to Torah, or the koran? What about these unspeakable groups that open doors and let things that aren't describable in, surely there is some source to their evil; our evils are usually relative, we think we're making life easier or the other person deserves it, but there has to be a source that is completely evil. These things all do fit into G-d's perfect plan, but do you think he made us evil, and we're wiping that away with our lives, or that a being out there really wants our freedom and will destroy whoever he can until he is our ruler, or as you said, there is no good and bad spirits (they are not in rebellion against G-d) just spirits doing what they're told?
Also what are your thoughts on the catholic narrative of the heavenly war and the devil being banished with his followers here?
-
So what about demoic posession? You believe G-d is the king of all nations of this world? Was G-d ruling over the pagan nations in Israel of old? Do you believe that spirits are attracted to and attach themselves to Torah, or the koran? What about these unspeakable groups that open doors and let things that aren't describable in, surely there is some source to their evil; our evils are usually relative, we think we're making life easier or the other person deserves it, but there has to be a source that is completely evil. These things all do fit into G-d's perfect plan, but do you think he made us evil, and we're wiping that away with our lives, or that a being out there really wants our freedom and will destroy whoever he can until he is our ruler, or as you said, there is no good and bad spirits (they are not in rebellion against G-d) just spirits doing what they're told?
Also what are your thoughts on the catholic narrative of the heavenly war and the devil being banished with his followers here?
All nations use 'Free Will' to decide whether to worship false deities. The Jewish sages explained, long ago, about how the world devolved into Idol Worship. According to Torah all mankind is descended from Adam and Chava, as you are aware. Originally all man knew Hashem because they were told by their parents, as Cain and Able knew about Hashem from them.
Judaism doesn't really believe in 'Demonic Possessions' as you put it. This is a foreign idea to Judaism and it has basis in Idolatry. As I stated above, all the 'evil' which exists in the world was created by Hashem in order to 'wake us up' and obey his commands.
For instance we look at the story of our slavery in Egypt. Do we really think that the Egyptians were able to torture and kill the Jewish children without Hashems allowing it to happen? Do you believe that there was a power greater than Hashem which momentarily overpowered the will of Hashem? No No No... This is not what Jews learn about the descent into bondage in Egypt.
The Jews spent their time in Egypt as a result of Hashems will. He made a promise to Abraham that his children would eventually sojourn in a land which was not their own, and they would serve this nation. Hashem even said how long our slavery would last (400 years). Every enemy of Israel was created by Hashem, both Ishmael (the arabs) and Essau (The Romans) and even Amalek (Persians/Germans). Every enemy was sent by Hashem in order to remind Jews that we are his chosen people.
It is true that there is evil in the world, as I explained above, our evil inclinations are a powerful force which tries to test our souls. Temptations are presented by our evil inclination and the Torah is a way to subdue our evil inclination.
I don't know what groups your refer to. I don't believe that there is any truth to 'black magic' or other occult practices. The Torah explicitly prohibits the Jews from believing in such nonsense. And I believe it is because there is nothing to it. They can give excuses as to why they act so strange but there is nothing 'supernatural' about that stuff.
As I said Hashem is the source of everything in the world. In Ecclesiastes King Solomon says that there is 'Nothing New Under the Sun'. I don't believe in evil spirits while I do believe there are angels. Angels are called Melachim in Hebrew and the word means 'Messengers'. And angel has a mission, to give a message to its recipient. Melachim are also forces in this world which obey the command of Hashem, such as the wind and rain, the forces of nature, etc.
So in summary I think you understand that Hashem is the ultimate source of everything, what we see as 'good' and what we see as 'bad'. I believe this is the fundamental meaning of the Shema prayer which we say...
SHEMA YISRAEL HASHEM ELOKAYNU HASHEM ECHAD
HEAR O'ISRAEL HASHEM IS OUR G-D, HASHEM IS ONE
Hashems 'ONENESS' is a main idea of Judaism, that there is 'NO OTHER'...
http://www.berotbatayin.org/shema.htm
"Hear, Yisrael, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One."
1.Roots of the Shema
There are two Midrashic sources for the historical roots of the Shema. One is the story of Yakov's death, when he asked his children if they had any complaints about Hashem. They responded by declaring, "Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokanyu, Hashem Echad!" (Devarim Rabbah 2:35) This was deeply healing to Yakov, as he realized that he had taught his children so well that they totally embodied his teachings, and had fully integrated Hashem's Oneness into their consciousness. Yakov realized that they would be able to lead the Jewish people with the strength of their emuna shelema (total faith), and thus he experienced a great healing of the suffering of his life, and was able to die peacefully, having achieved a level of spiritual development equal to the angels.
The second Midrashic source for the Shema is the revelation at Sinai, where it is said that as each of the 10 commandments was given to the Jewish people, they responded with lines of the Shema as a sign of their total acceptance of Hashem's will, and integration of His Oneness, as a people, on the highest soul level, Yechida (Devarim Rabbah 2:36)
Both of these stories begin our understanding of the power and importance of the Shema for every Jew. The spiritual heights attained by the Jews at the time of the revelation, and by Yakov and his children in the merit of their mothers and fathers, are contained as potential within the very syllables of the Shema. It is like a seed that contains the entire Torah, an alchemical formula directly to G-d. It is a verbal mikva, pouring into every level of our souls and aligning us to the truth of Hashem's Oneness, purifying doubt and the temptation to believe that there is anything in the world that is separate from Hashem. This is absolutely the highest spiritual work of every human being, and the special responsibility that is both the blessing and the curse of every Jew: sanctifying The Name as One, in a world of separation and confusion.
See also: http://www.divreichizuk.com/id24.html
"EIN OD MILVADO"-- "There is none beside Him"
It is not sufficient to mouth the words "ein od milvado" but we must actually feel it. All the forces in the world only exist because we deem them significant, when we feel in our heart that there is no power save that of Hashem then nothing in the world has the inherent ability to inflict any harm upon us. The Torah relates "Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, put them into the camel's pack-saddle and sat on them" (Bereishit 31:34). Why did she place them specifically in the packsaddle? Perhaps it was the ideal hiding place? Chazal offer an additional reason. These idols had a certain ability to reveal their precise location to Lavan. When did they possess such power? Only when they were treated with honor! If, on the other hand, they were degraded and treated as if they are worthless, their power would cease to function. By sitting on them, Rachel was not only hiding them but also degrading them in an effort to dispossess them of their powers. They would now be unable to inform Lavan of their whereabouts. This is how Avoda Zara operates, its power (assuming it has any) stems only from people attaching importance to it. When, however, no significance whatsoever is accorded it, when it is treated as being worthless, then it can exert no control (see Zohar volume I 164:2). It is not only Avoda Zara, but any force in the world only exists because we endow it with significance. When we truly realize and understand that Hashem is the only force in the world then the other forces will lose their significance and we will realize that nothing in the world can have any effect on us.
-
Wow, you just blew my mind. Especially about giving things significance, that explains much to me. Thanks for the hundredth time muman!