A Theory Made of Water Vapor

Oh my gosh! You gotta be kidding!

i hope my previous comment is not perceived as pro-evolution…

lol fivel

what i meant was that i heard that there was a creature the evolutionists could not explain. i think it was the criket

As far as I know there was literally “nothingness”

jewess: i’m sorry i don’t know where this is from, but i think there is one explanation that each day of creation could have been a thousand years for all we know, since a thousand years is like a day to G-d, who is not bound by time. and during this period when the world was in existence but before it was complete, animals could have lived and died out, leaving their bones as fossils.

another possibility i’ve heard is that fossils are the bones of the first generations of people (between adam and noach), who may have been much taller/bigger than people today. and the waters of the mabul may have warped their bones so they don’t really fit together as human skeletons anymore.

i don’t know if i got everything exactly right since it’s been a while since i heard this, and i can’t remember where. but whether one or neither explanation actually happened, it does show that there are possible explanations for what happened, even if we don’t know exactly what it was.

Feivel, thanks. I looked into your profile, but I wouldn’t know where to start…

JayMatt, thank you. That is a nice explanation and probably one that is very easy for somebody with “emunah peshutah” to swallow), but I think that it would be a hard one for individuals struggling with issues such as these, to accept. With all due respect to these great Rabbis, and I’m 100% sure that they know what they are saying, it’s very strong words for somebody who WANTS to believe in the Torah’s way, but is having question…I truly wish I could just accept it all and I refuse to believe in anything but the creation of the world, I would just like to understand how to break down what I learned in an Earth Science class and the Jewish perspective on it.

An open book, I like that answer and that is something that makes sense. The scientific evidence is so convincing and that is an answer that includes the truth about the creation, while also including the evidence that we are given by scientists. Thank you. I like the idea of the mabul water deteriorating the fossils and bones. I also really like the possibility that the six days of creation may have really been years. Excellent answer!…Thank you so much!! You have helped me a lot!

Thanks YWN…

Feivel, my question was more about the timing of the world, than about evolution in itself. I never believed in evolution, but I did not know the Jewish perspective on the fossils and rocks…not about the creation of man…Thank you.

Jewess, there are a lot of explanations that I’ve heard, including JayMatt’s.

Another explanation I heard was that there were previous worlds that this world was built on. So dinosaurs (for example) may have lived then.

To me, looking at the intricacies of how life works and how interconnected everything is (the butterfly effect), I cannot picture how anyone could say “well, it just happened.” Also, even if evolution were true (and I am not saying it is at all), no one talks about where the atoms came from to bounce together to form things. Someone still had to establish the material, as we cannot create matter. To me, this proves a divine being more than anything.

Nothing in science disproves G-d in any way. Evolution (and not necessarily the way the scientists try to claim) could have happened if Hashem wanted it to. Whether he did or not is a different question.

I suggest looking up an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and reading it carefully. In it are relatively simple explanations to the misunderstandings prevalent on this subject. Furthermore, like all scientific disciplines, one cannot compare knowledge from 150 years ago (Darwin), to what is known today.

There is nothing in the Torah that negates scientific fact, nor can there be. Science and faith do not contradict each other. Parshas Breishis is not a technical manual on “How to Create a World”, and should not be used to prove or disprove science or evolution.

Although no one claims science knows everything, or much at all, I haven’t seen anyone refuse to board an airplane because aerodynamic theory is only scientific theory and not fact. Nor does anyone demand an old generation antibiotic that doesn’t work anymore due to resistance developed by evolving bacteria. Accept facts when they clearly make sense.

Speak to an evolutionary biologist, read the readings, and then draw conclusions. Minimal knowledge on a subject is not a good recipe for truth.

The idea that the RBSH deliberately places things which have no purpose only to mislead or be machshil people is not very satisfying.

Possibly there could be remnants of other worlds before us (Tiferes Yisroel).

Also, R. Nosson Slifkin has books on reconciling this very difficult issue, but they are controversial.

look at it this way: if, theoretically and for the purpose of this discussion, adam had died the day he was created, and scientists had dug up his bones years later, how would they have figured his age? they would have said he was a grown man, i don’t know: 20, 30, 40 years old… when in reality he would have been a day old.

Ah, yes. Of course, that theory is just as valid as Last-Thursdayism.

The Wolf

I read that, technically speaking, the bumblebee and moth should not be able to fly. Aerodynamically, their bodies should not be able to stay afloat, let alone move thru the skies.

How a bumblebee flies:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_bumble_bee_fly

How a moth flies:

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4743029_a-moth-fly.html

Google is your friend.

The Wolf

The other posters basically summed it up, but I want to add one point, to address your comment RE correlating what you learnt in earth science with what you know / believe to be true from the torah perspective.

Feivel, when Hashem created the world, couldnt He have developed the stars for example on that day? Otherwise, why did he need a “day” to do something he could accomplish right away? Couldnt Hashem have chosen to “age” the stars before moving on to the next day?

These awful debates have been here before and have been shut down. I’d just like to say one thing to all of you before they shut this thread.

Fact: There is contradiction between the theory of evolution and how the Torah transcribes the creation.

Fact: If you want to reconcile the above, your view of one of the two needs to be adjusted.

Fact: You can see a lot about a person if he decides to turn his back on the Torah of his ancestors (by turning things into allegories and lav davkas) in favor of what the current scientists have to say.

Fact: You can see what type of “Rabbi” a person is if he falls into the latter category above.

proud tatty-

Well put.

I don’t know all of the evolutionists arguments, nor do I know their Torah-centric refutations to the extent that I would be comfortable debating them.

I also don’t think it would be right to be a “Wiki Warrior” and go scrambling for sites that I could then cherry-pick for those that support my point of view.

I will add the following two points:

1) Are there any rabonim, roshei yeshiva, poskim etc. who support the evolutionary upteitch of the Torah? (meaning well-known and accepted by the oilam, not individuals who may have the title of “Rabbi”)

2) The point of view that says “then how do you explain…” reminds me of how Elisha ben Avuha went off the derech to the extent that he became Achair. There are questions about how the Holocaust could have been allowed to happen, too. Sometimes we just don’t know all of the answers.

Joseph,

Plagarism isn’t nice. 😉 Bogen made this exact same post six months ago:

Evolution: Total Rubbish Because….

Here was my response to it (just simply replace “Bogen” with “Joseph”):

#

Oy, where to start. Bogen, your post is full of fallacies:

Let’s start at the top:

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. (And a false theory, at that.)

This assertion shows that you don’t understand how the term “theory” is applied to science. Gravity, for example, is also a “theory.” Please understand what a theory is (in terms of science) before throwing this out.

Past evidence for evolution has been overturned. In the past, major scientific revolutions have overturned theories that were at the time considered factual.

This statement is absolutely correct. But so what? In many other areas of science, theories that were later proven wrong were thrown out, but that doesn’t invalidate the latest findings. For example, originally before germ theory was developed, there were other theories to explain the spread of some diseases. The fact that earlier theories were overturned does not invalidate germ theory. Likewise, the fact that earlier evolutionary theories were overturned does not mean that the latest ones are invalid.

In the past there have been scientific hoaxes regarding evolution, such as the Piltdown Man forgery.

Again, this statement is absolutely correct. And again, so what? There has been fraud in just about every scientific field at one time or another. That does not necessarily mean that all scientific theories are false.

Pieces of “evidence” for evolution such as Ernst Haeckel’s 19th-century embryo drawings, were not merely “scientific errors” but frauds; Biology textbooks have continued to reproduce such “evidence” long after it had been debunked.

That’s correct, but no respectable biology book does so today. Again, the same point I made earlier applies.

Evolution is a pseudo-religion (evolution is based on faith, supporters of evolution revere Charles Darwin as a prophet, and supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.)

This is a baseless claim. No one revers Darwin as a “prophet.” In addition, the very idea of scientific theory is that no idea can be rejected “out of hand.”

Evolution is “unfalsifiable” (there is no tests that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false). Any “fact” can be “fitted” into the evolutionary framework. Past events of speciation are not observable and repeatable, and therefore evolution is not falsifiable. In 1976, Popper himself said that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme”.

This is just plain false. You can do a simple Google search and find examples where evolution is claimed to have been observed and experimented with. I’m not familiar with the Popper quote you brought, but I’m confident that the vast majority of the scientific community does not agree with it.

Mind you, I haven’t brought one scintilla of evidence that evolution is true. That’s not my goal here. My goal is simply to cut down false arguments.

The Wolf

oops, that was embarrassing. I was logged onto the wrong account.

jk

Just to elaborate, I personally don’t believe in the theory of evolution for a different reason which is the self-assembly issue. There are so many intricate parts which are needed for even the simplest cell, and they are interdependent. One needs DNA to encode proteins, but one needs proteins to run the transcription and translation apparatus. The proteins which are needed (in the first cell) would have to have been there by coincidence, but also encoded for in the same DNA in order for the cell to have a chance of replicating and passing on its abilities. What are the chances that a random sequence of amino acids is functional (when even a single substituted amino acid can be detrimental, like I believe occurs in sickle cell anemia)? But furthermore, what are the chances that the corresponding sequence by chance happens to be found in the DNA or RNA of such a primordial cell?

There are so many atoms and molecules which can interact in so many random ways, that even if the right ingredients are there, what is the chance they will bind in a way that is operative in even the simplest cell? Think of it this way. You want to save money on automobile factory workers. So you cleverly design a car that self-assembles. You attach magnets to special places on each component and part of the vehicle so that part 1 will automatically come together with part 2, and then with part 3, and so on. You dump the whole pile on the floor, and miraculously a car emerges. Actually, not so simple. What will direct part 1’s magnet to lock up with part 2, and not part 8 which happens to be lying next to it? There are an enormous number of permutations that could clump together, and an enormous number of orientations, most of which would yield nonsense. And that assumes that the right parts are all present. I do not think any factories have been able to produce anything useful using self-assembly to date.

But what many don’t understand about Rabbi Slifkin is that he shows that even if one would demonstrate that things can self-assemble, the contribution of the RBSH is in the fact that he designed the laws of nature which allow such a system to be built. There are many constants in nature which are just too fortunate to have the value they do. He shows that if evolution were proven true in a lab, this would not negate the existence of the RBSH. It is a shame that many have misunderstood his intent, and think he is trying to uproot yiddishkeit, when in fact he is trying to show that even the most sopshisticated science has a need for a borei.

He appeals to those who work and have studied science on an advanced level who get annoyed when simplistic statements are made such as the scientists are fools or deliberately looking to falsify. In fact Darwin was no slouch. I saw an exhibit at the Harvard Museum of Natural History in which a new flower was discovered that had an extremely deep and narrow access to where the pollen was located. No known bug could fit into it. Darwin said there must be a moth of such and such a size with a long tongue of such and such dimension that does the pollenation. Sure enough, after a long search, such a moth was discovered, and it did indeed pollenate that flower.

The brilliance of Rabbi Slifkin is that he tries to be meyashev the highest levels of science with the highest levels of Torah learning. Not the simplistic dismissals of “they are all reshaim and fools” which doesn’t go over to well with a trained scientist. Scientists have learned how to harness electromagnetism and send satellites to space which guide your own car. Biologists have learned to work with DNA and genes and have quite a good understanding of major cellular processes. DOn’t frum people go to Dor Yesharim to get tested? Don’t they go to doctors who have studied germs and so on? To call them fools is rude, but worse, is pure sheker.

Of course there is so much more to learn, and we can’t visualize the movement of proteins in real-time, which would open up entire new worlds of research and we don’t understand how proteins fold up automatically, and which interact with which others without much painstaking trial and error. We don’t know how to regenerate many types of damaged cells, and this is being actively pursued in thousands of labs. However, calling these people fools and liars really doesn’t reflect well on the intelligence of the one using those phrases. It makes one sound like a boor, and certainly doesn’t do anything for the honor of Torah, as intelligent scientists will simply dismiss such noisemakers, and go home with the opinion that religious people really are from the dark ages.

In order to enter into a dialogue with scientists, one must evidence some understanding of how deep science really is, and how hard these scientists work to uncover its mysteries. Rabbi Slifkin has done a remarkable job in trying to do that and show how the Torah can be understood even by educated scientists, and even if certain facets of evolution are found to be true.

One anecdote that R. SLifkin mentioned somewhere is that one Rov once told him that evolution is obviously false because the fossil record doesn’t show enough evidence. So R. Slifkin answered back, well, exactly how many fossils would you need to believe that it was true. Obviously the Rov did not answer. The point is that the Rov went in to the subject with a preconceived notion, and not with an objective desire to study the merits of the theory. Rabbi Slifkin has ways of showing that even if the theory is 100 percent true, it can still be totally in accordance with the Torah. Let us give him a little credit for the brilliant work he has done, even if we do not agree with his conclusions.

How arrogant, and how ridiculous!

The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.

Now the question is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these organs seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.