- This topic has 187 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Just to point this out here, a definitive fossil record does not exist. They have found some middle species, but nowhere near the number that should exist if current evolutionary theory exists.
Punctuated equilibrium is ridiculous to anyone who can think things logically through.
Ben Levi and WIY,
You are both simply wrong on many levels.
1.)Evolution does make predictions about what will be found in the fossil record. For example a prediction that it makes is that you will find different species living at different times in the strata. This is what you find. As they say to disprove evolution all that you would have to find is a fossilized rabbit in Precambrian rock.
2.) There are thousands and thousands of “transitional” fossils. Nobody disputes this fact. You can physically see many of them in the Natrual History Museum in New York or do a simple google search.
3.)Your Hoyle qoute is talking about the processes that Darwin suggested caused common descent. Hoyle never disputed the evidence for common descent. This is a distinction that those who have not actually studied evolution fail to grasp fairly often, and applies to the vast majority of qoutes people bring from scientists that they think are saying that there is no proof to evolution.
There is common descent and there is the Darwinian theory as to how that descent came about. They are two totally different things.
peppersalt.
If I understand you correctly basically you are referring to two things.
1) There is a definite commonality amongst skeletal structures, it is what caused Darwin to come up with his Theory in the first place. For the atheist it points to common descent as the way to explain this. For the believer in G-d creating the world it ‘s “duh we always knew that”.
2) Darwin explains the method of “common descent based on what is crudely described as survival of the fittest” there are many problems with that theory. Not the least of which are the complete lack of a fossil record meaning a record of transitional species such as thousand of giraffes with short necks followed by thousands of giraffes in the next strata with longer neck etc….
I have been to the Museum of Natural History btw and I have read literature on the subject from both pro and con approaches.
The reason actually is because the first thing I ever read on Evolution was from Rav Avigdor Miller and I simply could not believe that Evolution could really be that ridiculous.
So I actually went and read the sources and literature and yes I what I found is that it is really completely utterly ridiculous.
Ben Levi,
1.) There are multiple strings of evidence that point to common descent.
2.) It is not the “skeletal similarities” that are used in of themselves. There is a clear nested hierarchy that is not predicted by special creation.
3.) When Scientists question if the fossil record supports “Darwinian evolution” they are not questioning the fossil record’s support of common descent. They don’t question that because the fossil record does support common descent. There ARE transitional fossils found in the strata where they would be if common descent is true. The discussions among scientists are what theory as to exactly what mechanisms caused it and causes it fit best with the amount of transitional fossils found.
Like was pointed out above this is a distinction that most people who have not actually studied evolution fail to grasp and it applies to the vast vast majority of quotes thrown around claiming to show that scientists do not believe in evolution.
Sam2,
All punctuated equilibrium suggests is that instead of the gradualist approach that species are always in flux; most species tend to stay stable until subjected to various pressures at which point they start evolving at a “fast” (hundreds of thousands of years plus as opposed to tens of millions plus). It is not as radically different from the classical Darwinian approach as people seem to think and is not nearly universally accepted in either case and plenty of scientists say there is no need for it.
000646
a) I don’t think it’s possible to throw around “quotes” proving that scientists themselves do not believe in evolution. Those that believe in it believe in it those that don’t (and there are quite a few that do not (Gish, for example is a PhD as are most of the foremost voices arguing against evolution).
The purpose of the “quotes” are to instead show that even those that are avowed “evolutionists” themselves are forced at times to admit to the “howling” problems to a Theory that has never been proven.
Ben Levi,
My point was simply that the vast vast majority of those qoutes about the fossil record are simply advocating one theory of the details of how species evolved from one another over another. They are not saying that the fossil record does not indicate evolution at all. They all agree that the fossil record does show the evolution of species
000646
Again for finding isolated fossils that can be explained by stating that looking a came from b which came from c which came from d proves absolutely nothing.
It merely says that if you do no believe in G-d and have no understanding of Maseh Bereshis and the underlying chochmah of Guf and Neshomah you are going to run into major problems that can be explained away by the Theory of Evolution.
Now that Theory itself can be crazy, have no direct proof (no there aren’t fossils of animals in transition) but the Theory is the only way for an atheist to explain the World.
But does it qualify as proof?
One of the leading books written to counter Creationism demonstrates the absurdity of stating apes and humans do not share common ancestry by demonstrating how similar various parts the DNA are.
Is that proof?
Take out any Hashkafa Sefer and read how mans guf is the same as an Animal’s in fact we just heard Koheles on Succos where the point is made again and again “Man has nothing over animals”
The difference is the neshomah not the guf.
So basically if you don’t know the Theological backbone of Judaism it’s confusing, if you do it’s not.
(BTW, scientists saying something means nothing the question is whether or not the evidence bears them out)
(Edited for clarity)
000646
Again finding isolated fossils of various species, some of which appear to be extinct, which can all be explained by stating that a came from b which came from c which came from d proves absolutely nothing.
It merely says that if you do not believe in G-d and have no understanding of Maseh Bereshis and the underlying chochmah of Guf and Neshomah, and in addition to that disbelieve any notion of a “biblical Flood” even though virtually every single civilization has some sort of record of a Great Flood that closely parallels the Torah’s account, you are going to run into major problems.
And yes a lot of these problems can be explained away by the Theory of Evolution.
Now that Theory itself can be crazy, can have no direct proof (no there aren’t fossils of animals in transition meaning with wings that are partially legs etc..) but the Theory is the only way for an atheist to explain the World.
But does it qualify as proof?
One of the leading books written to counter Creationism attempts to “demonstrate” the absurdity of stating apes and humans do not share common ancestry by demonstrating how similar various parts the DNA are.
Is that proof?
Take out any Hashkafa Sefer and read how mans guf is the same as an Animal’s in fact we just heard Koheles on Succos where the point is made again and again “Man has nothing over animals”
The difference is the neshomah, not the guf.
So the bodies of humans are really similar to those of monkeys.
So what?
Basically if you take the tack of the early “Historical School of Judaism” the school that gave birth to the Conservative movement, by divorcing the “Spirit” of Judaism from the “laws” of Judaism, rendering a religion that was “lifeless with no theology what so ever. Well then thing get confusing.
(BTW, scientists saying something means nothing the question is whether or not the evidence bears them out)
To all the doubters of the existence of scientific evidence for common descent…Why would the world be created in such a way that humans and chimpanzees have 98% the same DNA and look and act so similar, and we can attribute each of the differences in appearance and features to certain portions of that DNA?
The head of the human genome project, I forget his name at the moment, is a evangelical Christian who believes the world is under 10,000 years old, says that even without the fossil record, the sequencing of DNA (both nuclear and mitochondrial) is enough alone to prove common descent.
If you don’t believe in evolution, fine. But don’t say that there isn’t enough SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up.
Ben Levi,
1.) The point is that you find the species where they would be expected to be if Evolution happened. As was mentioned earlier all you would have to find to disprove evolution is a fossil rabbit in Precambrian rock. That’s all. The fossil record also clearly shows that the different species lived in different eras as is predicted by evolution. A simple understanding of the pre Darwin ideas on species would lead most to believe all animals that were ever created lived together on earth at one point.
2.) There are fossils of animals that are apparent as “transitional” between species. There are a number of “transitional” wing fossils.(I only mention this because you brought it as an example).
3.)The point with genetics is that special creation does not predict that apes would be more genetically similar to people then say horses or that all mammals will be more similar to eachother then they are to lizards. It doesn’t predict that you will never find a mammal with feathers etc. Common descent does predict this. There is a nested hierarchy in nature that is clearly predicted by evolution.
4.)You can never prove that Hashem didn’t just make the world look as if evolution happened even though it didn’t. The question is if this is the logical conclusion to come too.
even though virtually every single civilization
Define “virtually every civilization.” How many would I have to find that don’t have a flood story to disabuse you of this notion?
closely parallels the Torah’s account
Define “closely parallels.” How far (aside from “there was a flood and lots of people died”) would the story have to be to no longer qualify as “closely parallels?”
The Wolf
One more addition to my above comment:
It is also undisputed that Natrual Selection and Mutation play a large role in the descent of species. The questions and discussions among scientists are how much of a role and what other things may play a role as well.
Wolf
Would you prefer the term quite common?
Various Flood stories are found throughout ancient civilizations and they generally have strong parallels to the “Genesis Flood. In that one man and his family are saved along with the animals they take with them.
I find it pretty curious as to why would attempt to dispute this since Bible Critics usually take a different tack.
Secular Frummy
Read my post above yours.
oo646
I find it curious as to you would state with such certainty that a number of “transitional” fossils have been found?
Could you please define what you mean.
I have seen arguments made as to why they are not needed (though when the hope of finding them still existed there was no such argument). One of the main arguments has been alluded to.
However I have not seen any claim that these “transitional fossils exist.
As for “pre Darwin ideas” of Creation as well as what special creation would predict.
I really don’t know why that would be relevant to the Torah view on creation since it has little to do with it.
A perfect example would actually be genetics since a cursory knowledge of Koheles and it’s meforshiom or Ramchal would actually leave one with the impression that it is quite probable that human DNA i.e the guf bears strong similarities to animal DNA.
A little calculation:
In the secular calendar, we are in the year 2013. We are in the year 5774 in the Jewish calendar.
So 2013-5774= 3761.
3761 BCE is the year the world was created in the Torah tradition.
Noah was born in the year 1056 (2705 BCE) and the flood began when he was 600(year 1556/ 2105 BCE).
This coincides with the 11th dynasty of Egypt, when Intef II was pharaoh. Nowhere in that history do they mention everyone dying out by flood.
All different cultures can have flood “stories,” but if one of the most reliable sources doesn’t mention a word about it, I tend to believe that it was simply a “story.”
I find it pretty curious as to why would attempt to dispute this since Bible Critics usually take a different tack.
What doe this have to do with anything? I’m not a Bible Critic.
In any event, yes, I grant you that they are common… but that could also be accounted for in the fact that flooding is a phenomenon that most people would have been familiar with (as it happens in most parts of the globe) and, as such, they would have had myths to go with such events, just as they did for the sun, the moon and other natural phenomena.
The Wolf
Ben Levi,
1.) There are plenty of fossils that show “in between” stages between ancient ancestors of modern species and their modern descendants. Although virtually evrey fossil can be classified as “transitional” there are plenty that are clearly so even to one unfamiliar with fossils and evolution.
2.)Before Darwin it was believed that all animals were created on the same day. So if you would ask someone how they would predict the fossil record would look they would predict that all animals would be found together in the different strata ( there should be plenty of “pre Cambrian rabbits”) Evolution predicts that different species lived at different times with new species appearing only in certain eras and not being around before. The fossil record confirms evolution’s predictions.
4.) I don’t think you fully understood what I meant by a nested hierarchy. It is more then “similarities” I explained it more at length in my above comments.
All vehicles properly called cars which in America, are street legal, have wheels and seats and seatbelts and headlights and taillights and turn signals etc…
And they have all this commonality because they were created to coexist with each other and be driven down the same roads together.
G-d would have logically created all living animals and humans to have similar DNA and breathe the same atmosphere and live together on the same planet.
To jump to the conclusion of common descent is an assumption, not
something that has been proven.
Egypt not having a flood story is not proof there wasn’t one.
Evolutionary theory (common descent) has similar issues.
For example: If the Earth were billions of years old and all animals spread out from one original lifeform, then they should have spread out to every place they would have thrived.
Yet Boa Constrictors which can live in every climate, between South America and the Florida swamps where they are thriving better then they did in their native habitat, never migrated there on their own.
They only got there because humans brought them over there.
This shows me a serious flaw in (macro) Evolution.
When people say there is ‘evidence’ for common descent, that is still not proof.
And there is ‘evidence’ for the Torah account of creation as well; As has been mentioned in either this, or in another thread where someone named several rabbis who present such evidence at scientific discussions and debates they have at universities all accross the country (according to the person who made those posts, anyway).
Wolf,
Yes flooding is something most people would be familiar with.
That one man is told to build a boat and save his family along with all the animals on board?
Nope, Not so common.
The Flood stories all seem to have certain eerie similarities.
Secular Frummy
have you studied Eygptology?
I admit I actually have a pretty good interest in the area and am pretty familiar with aspects of it and still haven’t even attempted top go back that far.
Because to state that the records of any Eygptian Dynasty that archeologists would have surmised existed at the time are from the most “reliable” is a stretch and that’s saying it nicely.
00646
I don’t think you understand what I was saing.
What the Secular version of “Creationism” is or “Intelligent Design” does not in the least interest me.
Maseh Bereshis is hard, it’s really hard. And what is actually spoken about in Torah sources has very little to do with secular understandings.
There is a snippet of Shar HaKedusha from Rav Chaim Vital that is publishesd as an introduction to Even Shelaima since the Motzi L’or felt it would be impossible to understand Even Shelaima without it.
Proving genetic similarities between the various “guffim” “bodies” of creatures would simply make the small excerpt of Rav Chaim Vital easier to understand.
And that’s just one example.
But for the evolutionist it proves evolution and to the “creationist” it’s a really big problem.
I get it.
However if you learn torah it’s not, and doesn’t come even close to proving evolution.
As for transitional fossil.
I did not refer to “transitional” stages .
I referred to fossils of animals “in flux” in the process of transition.
They should be there, Darwin stated they would be found.
They haven’t.
Now should fossils reveal animals that are extinct or various types that seem to have been different at some point in time.
I personally would be shocked if they didn’t.
a) The Torah makes clear that giants existed.
2) Prior to the flood there were the Benei Melachim.
3) There was the tachash (whatever it was)
5) Snakes changed after creation.
6) If Humans were the size the Torah says they were then animals could not have been the size they are today.
So I just listed 6 indicators that a fossils “record” would show animals we don’t have and I would assume that as humans “shrunk’ animals might have shrunk with them.
Now I could be wrong. I am not a mekubal and am not sufficiently versed in certain matters to be able to say things for certain.
The sole point remains that the fossil record “proves” common descent in ways that don’t exist if one knows Torah.
Torah Rocks,
1.) As I pointed out to Ben Levi it is not just “similarities” in structure. There is a nested hierarchy in nature that is predicted by common descent. I elaborated more a couple of comments earlier.
2.) Why does it follow that animals will automatically migrate to evrey place on earth where they can live? Why wouldn’t oceans and mountain ranges etc. stop this from happening?
3.) When there is enough evidence to support something and enough things can be accurately predicted by it that is a reason to believe it happened.
Ben Levi,
1.) As I pointed out earlier there are plenty of fossils that are apparently “in flux” even to one who is not familiar with evolution or fossils.
2.)The fossil record shows generations of animals living and dying in completely separate eras. According to what you say there should still be “Precambrian Rabbits” mixed in with the dinosaurs etc. according to evolution there should not be. There isn’t any just as evolution predicts.
3.)There could be some deep Kabalistic reason the world appears as if evolution happened even though it didn’t. That is a belief you are entitled too however it is different then saying that there is no proof to evolution.
The real remaining problem with common descent that no scientist has yet been able to contend with is how life started in the first place. It takes a minimum of a 30-amino acid chain for a self-replicating protein to exist. The odds of a 30-amino acid chain being randomly created from the theorized primordial soup is astronomical. It should take much more the 4.6 billion years they claim they have.
Sam2,
How life started has nothing to do with common descent or evolution other then it had to happen first.
All evolution explains is the diversity and complexity of life (beyond the replicating molecule stage).
Three short points:
1. I personally know a physical chemist who has developed a model explaining how life could have been formed from single elements.
2. The level of scientific knowledge needed to propose this model is far beyond what anyone in the coffee room has demonstrated. I suggest that far-reaching scientific conclusions in either direction be used in this forum with a bit more humility.
3. As science attempts and often succeeds to gradually fill in the gaps in the puzzle of life, it becomes increasingly problematic to use the “scientists have not yet found” claim, or similar claims. Obviously, these claims fall with new discoveries.
00646
#1 Could you please explain what you mean by nested hierarchy and give some evidence for actual prediction of evolution?
#2 Because in the example I gave, there is nothing to
have stopped the Boas (they can live in deserts and tropical areas and have no problem crosssing water and there are no high snowcapped mountains blocking the way from South America to Florida) from naturally spreading to all those areas just like the crocodiles and alligators did if they really had millions of years to do it.
#3 That applies to Torah as well.
#4 If you google “man said, G-d said ” and then look up
the section about soft tissue in dinosaurs you can find scientific
documented evidence of so called fossils with soft tissue
that supposedly could not exist if they were really hundreds of millions of years old.
More and more we see evidence of scientists proving to have personal agendas and falisfying data to promote those agendas.
They do not want to be bound by G-d or his laws so they will do and say anything and ‘find (supposed) evidence’ to support their agendas.
They are educated in schools and universities where belief in G-D is hated and feared and ridiculed and where morality, it is taught, is ‘relative’ and that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong.
One well known example of this is in the anti business anti prosperity agenda that tells us we can’t have private cars and can’t have many other things because they supposedly cause global warming.
The fact that they have been caught falisfying data and deliberately leaving out evidence that contradicts their agenda is dismissed as ‘insignificant’.
Also even besides their agendas getting in the way of real scientific discovery, science is just not nearly as exact and infallible as evolutionists would have us believe.
We can’t even predict todays weather accurately (or they would be able to tell us things like “today the city will get exactly .164 inches of rain which will start at exactly 4:39 PM and end 2 and one half hours later”
instead of “30% chance of light showers somtime in the afternoon” which actually wind up starting at 2 AM the next morning) but they expect us to believe that they know what the exact climate was, 250 million years ago.
If science were so exact and infallible we should need no witnesses in most murder cases.
The forensics should be plenty to gain a conviction when the suspect
actually committed the crime, no mattter what the witnessses all say an d no matter how good his alibi, is.
TR, see the following
1. Economics is not science
2. No scientist claims that science is infallible. That’s why models are constantly tested.
3. Scientists, being human after all, are just as prone to bad behavior as you or me. I’m reminded of R’ Noach Weinberg ZTL’s famous warning about not judging Judaism by actions of some Jews.
4. Actually, weather prediction is pretty accurate given the enormous number of variables in the model. 3 day forecasts are usually right on the money. Longer range forecasts are much more difficult,
P,S, A general note: When a scientist refers to a “theory”, he (or she) doesn’t mean what you mean when you use the same word. Lay people use the word “theory” to mean sort of a best guess. In science the word for that is “hypothesis”. A scientific “theory” is an explanation of a phenomenon that has passed all tests of it’s validity so far. If it continues to correctly explain and predict the phenomenon for all possible tests, it becomes a “law”.
I believe in science. Scientists are observing the universe around them to determine the rules of how our world operates. We know there are rules, and we also know that G-d set the rules and can change or suspend them.
Torah Rocks,
1.) Read some books on the subject. You can get them in library. I explained what I meant a few comments ago.
2.) I don’t understand why you think it follows that animals will migrate to every place they can get to.
3.) Evolution makes plenty of predictions that match with what we find. I gave some examples above in my earlier comments.
4.) No Dinosaur fossil less then millions of years old has ever been found. The “squishy stuff” found in a couple of fossils does not contradict this fact. Read about it a bit, again take some books out of the library.
Wow. I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen such a blabbering screed, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
More and more we see evidence of scientists proving to have personal agendas and falisfying data to promote those agendas.
Evidence for such a claim?
Of course, I’m not claiming that there aren’t scientific frauds. There are people who are frauds in every human endeavor, and science, in that regard, is no different. However, you seem to be claiming that the fraud is endemic and purposely built into and tolerated within the scientific community. If that’s the case, then please provide some recent evidence for this.*
They do not want to be bound by G-d or his laws so they will do and say anything and ‘find (supposed) evidence’ to support their agendas.
Mind read much?
This, of course, is silly, for two reasons. First of all, there are plenty of scienticts who *are* religious, church (or shul/mosque/whatever)-going people. I know of several myself. This is just an ad hominem attack.
In any event, it really doesn’t matter. Evolution stands or falls on the evidence, not the real or imagined motivations of a group of scientists.
They are educated in schools and universities where belief in G-D is hated and feared and ridiculed and where morality, it is taught, is ‘relative’ and that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong.
You speak of colleges and groups of people as monolithic institutions where there is “one way” and no other. Of course, that’s not true. Are there people who are hostile to religion on college campuses (and even in positions of authority)? Sure. But there are also people who are not.
And, again, evolution stands or falls on the evidence, not the real or imagined policies of academic institutions.
One well known example of this is in the anti business anti prosperity agenda that tells us we can’t have private cars and can’t have many other things because they supposedly cause global warming.
The fact that they have been caught falisfying data and deliberately leaving out evidence that contradicts their agenda is dismissed as ‘insignificant’.
Being anti-business has nothing to do with evolution. Again, please provide a cite that data is being falsified on a systemic basis within the scientific community (as opposed to isolated instances).
Also even besides their agendas getting in the way of real scientific discovery, science is just not nearly as exact and infallible as evolutionists would have us believe.
Straw man. Science is not infallible. Indeed, the Scientific Method is predicated on the idea that it’s not infallible.
We can’t even predict todays weather accurately (or they would be able to tell us things like “today the city will get exactly .164 inches of rain which will start at exactly 4:39 PM and end 2 and one half hours later”
instead of “30% chance of light showers somtime in the afternoon” which actually wind up starting at 2 AM the next morning) but they expect us to believe that they know what the exact climate was, 250 million years ago.
Silly argument. Events that occur in the future are subject to variables which can alter events. That’s why no one guarantees the weather, but rather makes estimates based on models built upon data gleaned from previous observations. Weather in the past, however, leaves behind physical evidence that can tell us what the general climate was.
If science were so exact and infallible
Again, straw man. No one (except those making straw man arguments) says that it is.
we should need no witnesses in most murder cases.
The forensics should be plenty to gain a conviction when the suspect
actually committed the crime, no mattter what the witnessses all say an d no matter how good his alibi, is.
Oh, please. This is just silly.
One field of science (evolution) has very little or nothing to do with forensics.
Part of your problem is that you’re viewing the entire scientific community as monolithic, with one agenda, one master plan. The fact is that it just doesn’t work that way. Different branches of science have their own way of doing things. Different scientists within a discipline (and across them) have disputes all the time. There is no single person or group that “controls” science.
The Wolf
* And, please, don’t bring up Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s diagrams or any of the old stuff that has long been recognized as frauds. The fact that the scientific community has shown them to be frauds proves that there is an effort to weed that stuff out.
Look,
There is separate “threads’ within the Theory of Evolution.
Some of what evolutionists posit is quite well documented.
Most of that stuff not only does not contradict Torah, rather in a way confirms it.
As I posted before there are many indications from the Torah that species have changed.
There was a change from before the Mabul to after. (B’Nei Melachim)
In addition while Adam HaRishon was a “giant” according to Midrash he was able to interact with animals meaning they also must have been of a different sixe then what we have today.
Furthermore a species going extinct according to basic understandings of Derech Hashem makes sense, if there is no longer a purpose for them they disappeared.
Now what does prove issues would be common descent.
But the evidence for common descent is basically extremely similar genetics. Which I have posted previously does not prove common descent in the slightest.
Rather common genetics makes perfect sense with the Jewish concept of Guf and Neshomah.
Ben Levi,
1.) According to your “big animal before the Mabul” theory there should still be “Pre Cambrian rabbits” (maybe bigger ones- but they should still be there). According to your theory the fossil record still shouldn’t show many many generations of animals existing in completely seperate eras with some not coming onto the scene until much later then others it should show two groups only: one big and one small. This is all besides the points that there were plenty of small Dinos and other creatures in those eras, and the fossils are millions of years old.
2.) Similarities in body structure between people and animals may be discussed by some Torah sources a nested hierarchy isn’t.
I once had a conversation with my daughter along these lines. The question was whether Hashem created a tevah that runs the universe or does everything run by hashgacha pratios (hereinafter referred to as “HP”) ? It struck me at the time that if everything was HP, than the study of science is at least as important as the study of kabala. It turns out that HP is not random. It is quantifiable and predictable within both torah and scientific limits. Science is now essentially a window into the “Mind” of HKBH.
Take gravity for instance. If, as a previous poster wrote, there is no law of universal gravitation but the apple falls to the ground because HKBH wills it, it is, then, davar kodesh to note that every apple all over the world falls in exactly the same way at exactly the same acceleration every time. HKBH’s will is so predictable that I can send a rocket to the outer planets by using the gravitational assist from “slingshotting” the rocket around Venus and I can calculate it and do it every time.
So, from a practical standpoint there is no difference between tevah and PH. The scientific method works the same in either case.
Redleg
#1 What did I say about economics?
#2 Yes they do.
You cannot show me one single scientist who believes in
human evolution from animals (HEA) who will admit it
might all turn out to be false.
#3 This is not just one or two isolated cases.
This is the official doctrine.
Just today Rush Limbaugh reported that Popular Science magazine
has closed down it’s comments section because too many posters
there do not accept evolution and man made Global Warming
as absolute fact.
#4 No it’s not so accurate as I showed and no one has shown what I said to be wrong.
RE: PS No it has not necessarily passed all the tests.
But those who are in the majority who decide ‘truth’ by whatever the powerful majority decides is truth will not allow their claims to be tested
or questioned as Popular Science just showed.
Wolf I am not the one venting any anger here or making personal attacks.
So your opening paragraph obviously applies far more to you then iit possibly could to me.
It sounds like you believe in cyberbullying and trying to ridicule into silence anyone who disagrees with you.
It makes me feel sorry for you.
I hope you get better.
#1 I gave you evidence, in the whole anti business so called man made global warming establishment which has made cars less safe and more expensive to lower gas use because of their shrill and unfounded demands that “we do something now before it’s too late.
#2 No mind reading, (at least not on my part).
Read or listen to what Richard Dawkins says about anyone who
believes in G-d as well as Christopher Hitchins and Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan who are the top ‘go to’ people for most scientists on the subject of evolution.
Go on any other (other then one run by religious people) blog where
these issues are discussed see all the viciousness and vitriol
against the very idea of belief in G-D.
There are thousands of videos on youtube supporting belief in evolution.
I’d bet you can’t find one single one by someone who will say he lives his life based on what G-D tells people (lip service saying they ‘believe’ but do not actually treat others with differing views, decently, is meaningless ) to do.
TR: Dawkins and Hitchins are widely-recognized as the world’s leading atheists. Hawking and Sagan are not evolutionists. They are physicists who happen to be strong atheists.
Belief in evolution or common descent in the scientific community does not preclude belief in G-d.
If evolution stands or falls on the evidence then why can’t you talk about that without the raging anger you show, as if any disagreement somehow hurts you personally?
The fact is, that there is absolutely no actual solid irrefutable proof for HEA and no no one has ever seen any species ever evolve into a new species which was genetically incompatable from the one it evolved from.
Re college, show me one major university anywhere that would not fire a professor who teaches the truth of Torah and the fact that man made global warming is a hoax.
I can’t find one, can you?
I never said being anti business had anything directly to do with evolution.
But since you mention it, those professors who belige in it tend to be socialistic or even communistic because they belive ‘overpopulation’
will depleat to many resources to support everyone and must therefore lead to conflict and poverty and war.
They tend to be the ones who think America has prospered by wrongfully using up more then our fair share of the worlds resources.
Go ahead and show me which major university teaches that the above ideas are wrong.
If what I said about the weather was ‘silly’ you would be able to let people see that for themselves instead of telling them it dupposedly was.
It reminds me of TV commercials where they show a promo for one their comedy shows then they tell you there channel is “very funny”.
The minute they have to tell me how funny I am supposed to believe it is,
the more suspicious I get that it probably is not funny at all.
The same goes for your unfounded proclomations about everything I said that you so obviously think you have to tell everyone what they are supposed to believe about it instead of just presenting your arguments and letting everyone draw their own conclusions.
Looking at rocks and bones that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old (again no proof they are so old since no one went back in time to see for themselves) cannot be anything more then guesswork.
There is no possible way to verify it.
00646
I did not, nor do I come even close to claiming to have a “theory”.
I generally try to follow Talmudical rules of logic which are very different then Scientific one.
In Science the Hypothesis is formed first.
In Talmud one has questions and then is supposed to seek out the ansewer’s but without first having formed a Hypothesis, after one has already gathered the “evidence” then one figures out how that “evidence” can shed light on the previous questions.
As such being that I do not come even close to claiming to have a thorough knowledge of Maseh Bereshis it would be extremely stupid for me to begin spouting “theories” as to how it worked.
With that said.
a) All I stated was that Torah indicates a) there was a change in species appearance 2) there were (according to most) species that went extinct ex. tachash, snake’s before the cheit and after were radically different 3)The notion of a species going extinct is perfectly in line with Jewish thought and the understanding of creation of animals, i.e if they no longer serve a purpose they disappear.
b) The notion of “common descent” the way I understand things does prove to be at variance with the Torah which clearly states that HKBH created the various species.
Regarding that I stated that “overwhelming” evidence of common descent that’s used is the commonality of genetics (not just bodily structure) I stated quite clearly that the similarity of genetics is to be expected based on the limited understanding I have in these matters in which it’s clearly stated that the “guf” of a person is the same as that of an animal.
So you are saying that when scientists (not ‘science’ as you erroneously claim) say that HEA is an absolute proven fact, that we must blindly accept it as fact (which is what I am being told here when some here tell me to “read books on the subject” because obviouly sources that I mention that contradict those books are automatically dismissed without any actual research as being false just because “books” say so)
But when the forensics say just solidly that a certain suspect is indeed the murderer we should suddenly change how much we accept the science just because “it’s a different branch”?
That does not sound either scientific or logical.
As for your claim about how I supposedly view things, aren’t you the one who was complaining about mind reading?
I never brought up Piltdown man, but since you did, one case does not as you yourself pointed out prove any kind of systematic attempt to weed out any and all false science especially when it supports the liberal agenda.
Regarding Scientific “logic”
While this is tangential to the topic.
The differences between Talmidical Logic and Scientific Logic is one of the reasons I do not take “scientific theories” to seriously.
The method of scientific analysis basically requires one to already be partial to a particular solution when examining evidence.
Being partial to a particular result usually colors those results as well causes a great deal of evidence to be excluded since what is being searched for is not the solution to the original question, rather its whether or not the solution is correct.
In practice a great deal of medical mistakes are actually caused by this method of thinking i.e a wrong diagnosis is given and then not realized.
In Talmudical logic there are two things 1) one is required to maintain impartiality 2) if one would have a kushya in the beginning of learning a sugya and them immediately propose a hypothesis he would be “laughed at”. 3) “loose ends are only unable to “shlug up” a teretz if the overwhelming majority of a topic prove the validity of the teretz in a direct way, not just “work well” with it.
Again a perfect example is evolution.
A great deal of the “evidence” to evolution would be “inadmissible” in a Talmudic debate.
Much of the evidence simply state’s that if this Theory is true then xyz makes sense. a Talmudist would state simply “So what?” and if Theory abc that I dream up would work it could also make sense in fact all you have to say is G-d created things to look this way and you lose all proof.
It could be, can’t it?
In a Talmudic “debate” direct proof is needed to prove things, and direct proof to the Theory of Evolution is what is lacking.
00646 #1 which books should I read that will specifically mention the evidence I pointed out that you csn find bhy googling the phrase I mentioned above?
All you did was mentioned the words and did not in any detail actually
explain what they meant.
I could bring up words and make claims and tell others to go look them up, but for some reason that is never accepted as valid if I say it, so why should I accept it from you as a valid argument?
#2 Case in point, go read some books on the subject.
See how that works?
#3 As I said same for Torah.
What’s your point?
#4 You saying that is what those with the anti Torah agenda claim, but you saying it does not make it true.
Also the fact that ‘books’ say it does not ‘make’ it true either, especially when there is evidence that says otherwise which I have previously directed you to.
TR, you go ahead and believe whatever you want. As I said, it makes no difference in your daily life. Oh by the way, your response to my post is total nonsense. It is not worth attempting refutation as your mind is made up. You are clearly guilty of the what you accuse others of being. You just go along on your merry way. Biz 120 we’ll see who was right, me or you.
Ben Levi are you saying that Adam Ha-Rishon lived hundreds of millions of years ago when the animals supposedly would have been so much larger.
If Torah supports millions of years of evolution as taught in public schools and in universities, why was I not taught that in yeshivah (especially since it was a baal teshuvah for those like me who came directly from college)?
Why do the vast majority of Chassidic rabbis seem to all teach the Earth is fewer then 6000 years old and that G-d formed the progenitors of each species separately and not as descendants from one common ancestor?
And are you saying you know better then all of them and that they are all wrong?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.