A Theory Made of Water Vapor

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee A Theory Made of Water Vapor

Viewing 95 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #589882

    feivel
    Participant

    from the Associated Press:

    “When scientists set out to trace the roots of human laughter, some chimps and gorillas were just tickled to help. Literally.

    That’s how researchers made a variety of apes and some human babies laugh. After analyzing the sounds, they concluded that people and great apes inherited laughter from a shared ancestor that lived more than 10 million years ago.

    Experts praised the work. It gives very strong evidence that ape and human laughter are related through evolution, said Frans de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta.”

    this is not an exception

    this is a very typical case of the most incredible conclusions that evolutionists derive from a fragment of “information” that they blow up to gigantic proportions with nothing but air based on any kind of assumptions and imagination they wish this is very typical

  • #647643

    mepal
    Member

    Oh my gosh! You gotta be kidding!

  • #647644

    very typical 😛

    [incidentally, i have to say that i happen to have watched a bonobo monkey being tickled… the laughter & wriggling was admittedly quite human-like.]

  • #647645

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

  • #647647

    GoldieLoxx
    Member

    u see what u want to see

    fivel i once heard that there was an insect wich could not be proven in evilution. i think it was the criket is this true??

  • #647648

    feivel
    Participant

    goldie

    im sorry

    i dont know what you mean

    no creature can be proven to have been created by evolution

  • #647649

    A600KiloBear
    Participant

    BS”D

    And what of certain creatures who I have seen, such as Ahmadinejad YMS, who look like proofs for REVERSE evolution from a higher species to a lower? :)))))))

  • #647650

    GoldieLoxx
    Member

    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

  • #647651

    Jewess
    Member

    While on the topic of evolution, and NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, (excuse my yelling please), I’ve always wondered, how do you explain all the scientific evidence, the fossils and bones and sedimentary rocks…Was there a world before our world? I know that it was “tohu vavohu” empty and without form, but were there creatures in that (proposed) era? Was there some type of world before the God created our world?

    I don’t mean to ask this out of kefirah…I really want to know so please don’t delete this post, mods…

  • #647652

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    As far as I know there was literally “nothingness”

  • #647653

    tzippi
    Member

    Dennis Prager recently mentioned that some English scientists put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a bunch of typewriters to see what would happen. What happened was, they all relieved themselves on the typewriters.

  • #647654

    feivel
    Participant

    Jewess

    this would requre a VERY lengthy answer which i dont intend to do at this time

    this was covered extensively in previous threads

    you can try checking my profile, if they didnt delete old posts you should be able to find something

    the “scientific evidence” is no evidence at all. as a matter of fact the complete lack of any gradual change from one species to another in the fossil record is a huge problem for the atheists. today the upper echelon of atheists have given up on darwin and proposed equally ridiculous “theories” to account for the big fossil problem

  • #647655

    JayMatt19
    Member

    I had once heard in the name of the Chassam Sofer (might have been the Chazon Ish, occasionally I’d mix them up, but I’m 98% sure it was the Chassam Sofer) that things like fossels and carbon dating (which itself is only a theory) were only placed here to fool those who want to be fooled.

    Avraham Avinu was able to look at this world and see that it obviously had a creator. R’ Akiva was able to see the niflaos haboreh and take the correct mussar from it.

    Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world. The same way that the rasha will be capable of using the Torah to justify his evil behavior, likewise the fool will find proof of his foolish beliefs in the world.

  • #647656

    an open book
    Participant

    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.

  • #647657

    feivel
    Participant

    jaymatt

    your answer is certainly the correct one

    but actually, logically and scientifically speaking evolution is as ridiculous as any possible theory you could come up with. it isnt even necessary to bring Torah concepts to refute it

    for what does the “theory” of evolution propose in its essence:

    there was some rocks, containing iron, sulfur, and some other dead chemicals, water and air. these inert, unintelligent materials, spontaneously combined over time, with no guidance, nothing directing them, by blind chance, into you and me, with our consciousness, ability to think and reason, to feel, to communicate with all the almost infinite, complex wisdom of our bodies, all parts cooperating cunningly and perfectly with endless feedback loops and in concert with all the other remarkably diverse parts of the world, insects animals plants, the sun, the wind, to sustain us in life.

    i could go on for weeks, but thats enough

    just spend a few minutes thinking about it

    CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING MORE TOTALLY ABSURD THAN THAT?

    thats just the ridiculousness of evolution in a nutshell

    the details of the proposed mechanisms of evolution are just as absurd

  • #647658

    Jewess
    Member

    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…

  • #647659

    feivel
    Participant

    Jewess

    look at the thread called “Inspiring Quotes”

    follow my posts

    start with page 2

  • #647660

    Jewess
    Member

    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.

  • #647661

    an open book
    Participant

    jewess: no problem. i’m glad that it was clear and that i could help 🙂

    just to make it clear, i was answering what jewess was asking, about the fossils. nothing about evolution.

  • #647663

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    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.

  • #647664

    .

    jewess and others:

    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.

    another example: stars are millions of lightyears away, which means that the light we see from stars is technically ancient light. they constantly reflect light towards us, but we don’t see it in ‘real time’ – we see light that’s supposedly millions of years old. to reconcile that to our knowledge of the *actual* age of the world, we have to realize that the stars *and the light* were created less than 6000 years ago.

    in the beginning of the world, aged things were created. perhaps fossils are included in this.

    i hope i’m speaking clearly here and that this helps y’all!

  • #647665

    onlyemes
    Member

    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.

  • #647666

    Jewess
    Member

    Hi SJS, I had a hard time stomaching JayMatt’s reply. (No offense, Jay Matt…it’s me, not what you wrote…I like to believe that God wants the best to come out of us,and not that He is there to prove that we are bad or fools…but that’s a whole ‘nother thread…)

    I always wondered if there was another world, but I know that God created the world from nothing. The dinasaur bones could be bones of something else and just reconstructed the way that scientists’ imagination led them…I like AOB’s answer, becuase if things were decayed in the Mabool, then they may seem older…and I never believed the exact years that scientists gave, anyways. I also liked the idea that one day is a thousand years in God’s time and I remember hearing that concept previously, I just never put it together with the six days of creation. These possibilities make sense, scientifically.

    The concept of the Big Bang, and/or no divine being is something that I don’t understand how people could accept either…and evolution could be proven wrong when it says that God created man “betzelem elokim”, something that an animal would not have…so if we believe in God and in the Torah, we can’t possibly believe in Evolution.

  • #647667

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    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.

  • #647668

    bpt
    Participant

    I did not hear about the cricket, but along the same lines, 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.

  • #647669

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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

  • #647670

    feivel
    Participant

    Hashem created a mature world, with animals, plants, oil, iron, coal, diamonds, and stars. its not a theory.

    The Feivel

  • #647671

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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

  • #647672

    feivel
    Participant

    “Evolution is fact”

    only if you worship Scientism as your avodah zorah

    it is scientifically absurd and persists only because the upper levels of liberal academia need it to, and because the general masses have not learned to think critically.

  • #647673

    bpt
    Participant

    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.

  • #647674

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Jewess, there really isn’t a conflict between the possibility of evolution and Judaism. There was a thread a while back that discussed it, but I think it veered off into a lot of attacks.

    I personally do not believe that dinosaur bones are anything other than a dinosaur. There are too many of the same skeletal patterns that have been found IMHO to be that. But, there is no problem with dinosaurs having existed. They could have only existed during creation. They could have been remnants of a past world. Or they could have just been bones that Hashem put in the world. I’m tempted to beleive one of the first two though…

    I found learning the Ramban in Bereishis very interesting – it kind of shows how what the ancient people called the four elements (earth air fire and water) kind of was how Hashem created the world. We’ll never understand nature entirely, but it sure is interesting to learn!

    Onlyemes, I don’t think anyone denies micro-evolution. But macro-evolution is a bit different.

  • #647675

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    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?

  • #647676

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    it is scientifically absurd and persists only because the upper levels of liberal academia need it to, and because the general masses have not learned to think critically.

    Can you really say that with a straight face?????

    The Wolf

  • #647677

    feivel
    Participant

    onlyemes

    your 2 examples have zero to due with your proposed suggestion as to why people should accept evolution as reasonable. you need some study yourself, you need to learn metascience, or the philosophy of science. science is a continuum. on one end are repeatable, observable phenomena, on which technology (your examples) are based.

    way over, a million miles away from this, on the other end of the continuum, is “deep theory” which is based on assumptions and speculation.

  • #647678

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    You said “it is scientifically absurd and persists only because the upper levels of liberal academia need it to, and because the general masses have not learned to think critically.

    I Am to busy to waste my time arguing evolution with you. However i do have one question i would like you to answer: Have you ever studied the theory of evolution in depth?

    ***EDIITED*** comment deleted. please refrain from making disaraging comments. YW Moderator-72

    Please answer honestly.

  • #647679

    proud tatty
    Member

    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.

  • #647680

    Bemused
    Participant

    646-

    I think Feivel has demonstrated elsewhere that his statements are quite well researched.

  • #647681

    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.

  • #647682

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    proud tatty, I’m not sure if you include me in your range of “facts” but I’m curious:

    1) Do you acknowledge microevolution as a fact?

    2) If you do, why isn’t it plausible for Hashem to use this on a macro level to create the world?

  • #647683

    feivel
    Participant

    zero

    i have a B.S in biology and have studied evolution extensively. i continued my studies in evolution after graduation trying to understand how such smart people could fool themselves so thoroughly. this was all before i became religious. i have no objection to evolution on religious grounds. my only objections are on logical grounds.

  • #647685

    proud tatty
    Member

    PY:

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

    Neither is the thought that his Torah (or parts there of) are merely allegorical. Look at the Rashi in breishis on Na’aseh Adam. Hashem in his torah puts things there so that those who choose to deny will see proofs for their denial. Why not in the world as well?

    All you have done is prove you don’t know G-d.

    SJS:

    1) Do you acknowledge microevolution as a fact?

    I don’t know the slightest thing about it. Since I know that evolution is against the Torah I do not choose to learn about it. (not saying anything about microevolution, just that I shun the entire topic as a whole)

    onlysheker:

    Evolution is fact. The opponents of this reality have not done their homework seriously.

    The Torah is emes. That is fact. Opponents of THIS reality have not done their homework seriously.

    Please do us all a favor and change your screenname.

    Minimal knowledge on a subject is not a good recipe for truth.

    Why do I get the impression that minimal knowledge is exactly the amount of Torah that you know. Kind of easy to push Torah aside when you don’t know about it, huh?

  • #647687

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Joseph,

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

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/evolution-total-rubbish-because#post-11226

    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

  • #647688

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Neither is the thought that his Torah (or parts there of) are merely allegorical. Look at the Rashi in breishis on Na’aseh Adam. Hashem in his torah puts things there so that those who choose to deny will see proofs for their denial. Why not in the world as well?

    Your analogy is false. HaShem didn’t write “Na’aseh Adam” to trick people. True, some people may use it to make a mistake, but it’s still true. But you’re saying that HaShem put fossils in the earth just to fool people. I don’t buy that.

    Sorry, but I don’t believe in a “trickster god.” My God’s seal is truth. Lo ish keil vichazev, it says.

    The Wolf

  • #647689

    Anonymous

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

    jk

  • #647690

    feivel
    Participant

    every generation has its avodah zarah, theories and isms which gain wide acceptance and popularity, and dominate the knowledge of the times. they all inevitably rot into nothingness, as does all sheker. but while they are alive their followers adhere to them as a g-d.

    the following (in bold) is a verbatim excerpt from the Feldheim translation of the Mesillas Yesharim. it was written before evolution was invented but speaks directly to it as just another fleeting member of the same of that which grows to oppose the Emes of the Ribbono Shel Olam. its old history, it only seems new because it is in our generation. some will become enamored by its charms and adhere to it, and some will stand in the camp of Hashem.

    For it is not enough that they lack the ability to see the truth, the evil staring them in the face, but they also see fit to find powerful substantiations and empirical evidence supporting their evil theories and false ideas. This is the great evil which embraces them and brings them to the pit of destruction………All this because of their being under the influence of the darkness and subject to the rule of their evil inclination.

    Ramchal

  • #647691

    feivel
    Participant

    i made a mistake in the previous post, i think the Ramchal deserves to be in bold, not italics

    every generation has its avodah zarah, theories and isms which gain wide acceptance and popularity, and dominate the knowledge of the times. they all inevitably rot into nothingness, as does all sheker. but while they are alive their followers adhere to them as a g-d.

    the following (in bold) is a verbatim excerpt from the Feldheim translation of the Mesillas Yesharim. it was written before evolution was invented but speaks directly to it as just another fleeting member of the same of that which grows to oppose the Emes of the Ribbono Shel Olam. its old history, it only seems new because it is in our generation. some will become enamored by its charms and adhere to it, and some will stand in the camp of Hashem.

    For it is not enough that they lack the ability to see the truth, the evil staring them in the face, but they also see fit to find powerful substantiations and empirical evidence supporting their evil theories and false ideas. This is the great evil which embraces them and brings them to the pit of destruction………All this because of their being under the influence of the darkness and subject to the rule of their evil inclination.

  • #647692

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    I agree with Wolf that Naaseh Odom was not put there for no purpose other than to trick people. It was put there to teach the lesson of anivus (humility).

    Similarly, all the issurim in the Torah were put there for a reason, not to be machsil. Kol mah shebara HKBH b’olamo, lo bara davar echad levatalah. For example, the shratzim are a crucial part of the food chain, although we may not eat them. The tayvah of arayos is necessary for kiyum haolam. We don’t find anything which is totally useless other than as a stumbling block. And if takeh the RBSH did put in a stumbling block, then after meah vesrim, one could claim he was an onus. (I.e., if a miracle happened that every statue of yoshka suddenly came to life, do you think the RBSH would hold it against the masses if they thought he was telling them to convert to christianity? Ein lo ldayan ella mah sh’enav ro’os.)

  • #647693

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    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.

  • #647694

    proud tatty
    Member

    Please stop mentioning that clown Slifkin. He does not have a smicha. He writes because he wants his name to be out there (Look at his 1st piece in Second Focus where he says as much). He also once claimed on the site AishDas in 2003 that the Mabul must be an allegory because the is no evidence that it happened.

    Imagine that, he chooses to turn something into an allegory because he does not see evidence that it happened! CLOWN!! AND YOU QUOTE THIS KOFER??

    There is a passuk in Reah which mentions about a false profit who makes signs and wonders who says to go against the Torah, the next passuk says don’t follow him. I, Hashem, am testing you. Imaging that Hashem tells us in the Torah that there will be things which come to test our Emunah. No, we wont be able to claim Onus if we fail this test. This is part of bechira. There would not be bechira if those who went against the Torah wouldn’t be able to somehow justify their position.

  • #647696

    Anonymous

    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.

  • #647697

    Anonymous

    Scientists are involved in finding “scientific fact”, which is not the same as “truth”, or even plain “fact.” This is because scientists – not science – have agreed to restrict “scientific proof” to things that fulfill their own self-imposed criteria, which limits the type of truth they will find. Example: If an experiment cannot be reproduced in the laboratoy, it is not considered scientifically proven.

    Now while I understand the need for such restrictions in order to weed out charlatans, it also weeds out much truth. So that if you have a miraculous event, witnessed by millions of people, such as Kabbalas HaTorah, and documented meticulously, that is still not considered “proof” to the scientists.

    There are many methods of reaching truth that are not considered “scientific”. Philosophical, logical, and intuitive thinking is not “scientific proof”.

    Consider the following example of confusing “scientific proof” with “truth.”

    You have 100 impeccable witnesses stating that the defendant stabbed his victim to death, his fingerprints are on the knife, there are 100 contradictions in his own testimony, and he has been convicted in the past of committing the exact same type of murders, 30 times. None of that constitutes “scientific proof.” So “scientifically”, the defendant would be found “Not guilty”.

    Ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method of proof is the most valid method of proof. Science finds truth to an extent. But only to an extent. The problem is, that often, philosophy, logic, and intuition also play a role in the quest for truth. And there, scientists are not trained, and worse, they are trained not to be interested.

    Science does not claim, really, to find “truth”. It is based on theory and falsification thereof. That is not enough for “truth.” The practice of science is the same as the practice of Law. You can have irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but he will be found innocent because the evidence was obtained without a warrant. Here, too, there is a need for these self-imposed restrictions to maintain long term control over how law is practiced, but the practice of law does not always equal justice and the practice of science does not always equal truth.

    As long as they keep asking the question and using their self-imposed limitations of what they can accept as an answer, they are going to continue running around in circles, coming up with the wackiest things.

    And evolution should have long been considered “falsified” by now, since the world clearly had a Designer, and so there is no question left that the theory of evolution is needed to answer. The fact that evolution is still around, merely shows that science is an incomplete method of seeking truth.

  • #647698

    Anonymous

    That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution – and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of “revolution,” which means sudden change – requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.

    But perhaps even more importantly, the only reason anyone would want to say that humans evolved from monkeys is the lack of any better way to explain the existence of humans, as well as monkeys and other species of life. There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from monkeys – there is not even any evidence that things evolve altogether. No evolutionist has ever seen or brought any evidence that even a single new organ has ever appeared through evolution, never mind a new species.

    And the evidence against evolution is so obivously compelling – the dependence on the completeness of biologial systems for the survival of the organism has evolutionists nailed to the wall. The first male member of the species had to already have available counterpart with a fully functional female reproductive system, and vice versa, else the species would not have had a chance to survive long enough to develop into anything; the first chicken egg had to be just thick enough to contain the newborn during the incubation period, but thin enough to allow it to break free.

    The reason the evolutionists created and still cling to that theory is because they have no better way to explain how we got here. If the world is accident, then evolution is the best they can come up with, even though it is unreasonable; if the world was created, then it is simply unreasonable.

    So for example, “evidence” such as “vestigial” organs is only evidence if you assume that the world is an accident. But if Hashem created the world and (c”v) “guided” evolution, it would mean that He sloppily provided humans with useless organs that He neglected to “guide” through the evolutionary process. And if you will give G-d enough credit that these organs actually do have a purpose that we do not know of, then the vestigial-organ evidence is down the tubes to begin with.

    The whole idea makes no sense.

    There are those who like to talk this way in a Kiruv situaiton when encountering the naive or unsophisticated who will not think outside the box they were placed in by trendy pseudo-science and will not open their minds to more logical, yet unfashionable thinking. People say such things in order to save the souls of the closed minded. But as an actual possibility, this idea does not qualify.

    The requirement to believe Torah MiSinai includes of course, not only Torah shebiksav but Torah shebaal peh. That includes Midrashim. However, Agados can be interpreted not literally. Rav Saadia Gaon writes that an Agada can be interpreted as Mesholim in 4 instances: If it contradicts reality, reason, Gemara or Rabbinic tradition. The Ramchal, in Maamar HaAgadta also writes that some Agados are mesholim. (See also Radak Shmuel I end of ch. 28)

    Not accpeting a Maamr Chazal is not accpetable – but to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more palatable is OK. Theoretically, that is. In order to interpret any Chazal – Halachah or Agada – you need to benefit of Rabbinic tradition throughout the ages. If the Rishonim considered an Agada literal, you would be fooling yourself by saying that it is not. They surely had the same measure of common sense as we do, and so if they were not bothered by the credulity of a specific statement of Chazal, we should not be, either.

    Another thing: There are people who refuse to accept what seems to them incredulity even in Pesukim of the torah and they therefore interpret them allegorically. That is Apikorsus for sure. And to say that well, I will trust the Torah and the prophets but not Chazal makes no sense. Chazal didnt make up stories. But rather the Agada was said, sometimes, as a Moshol. But to know when it is a Moshol and when it is literal is as difficult as properly interpreting any Torah passage. And here, too, the same logic that tells you the literal meaning of the CHazal is hard ot accept also tells you in even stronger tones, that we are nothing but foolish to reject the opinions of our Rishonim, who understood both reality and Chazal much better than we do.

    I have a better idea, then, for such cases, when you come across such a Chazal. Invoke Rav Chaim Brisker’s dictums: “Fun a kasha shtarbt mir nisht”. You wont die from a [an unanswered] question. And “S’iz besser to beiben by a kasha vi tzu zogen a krumer teretz” – “Its better to remain with a quesiton than to have the wrong answer.”

    So say simply, “I don’t understand this Chazal.” You dont have to interpret it any way at all. Maybe one day you’ll see something in a sefer or someone will explain it. In the meantime, there is no need to jump to conclusions that our predecesors did not reach.

  • #647699

    Anonymous

    Evolution, by definition, means “slow progress”, the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this “evolution” supposedly occur?

    Besides, there is no viable evidence for evolution. The evidence is evidence only assuming there is no Creator. All the similarities between us and monkeys are, to us, meaningless, because theres no reason to assume that one Creator did not create many of His creations with similar physicality. But if you assume there is no creator, then the quesiton arises: how do you explain the similarities between us and lower species? And besides — how in the world did such complex “animals” such as humans get here anyway? There are two options” fast or slow. Fast makes no sense if there is no creator. And the whole vestigial thing makes no sense also, as you noticed.

    The Torah says the world was created in 6 days. And that Rashi says explicitly that when the Torah says Vayehi Erev Vayehi Voker Yom Echad it means 24 hours.

    The 6 days of creation were in fact 24 hours. How could they not be? Aren’t days 24 hours now? So when did this change? Where does it indicate in the slightest that the first Sunday after creation (or the first Shabbos?) was suddenly shorter than previous days??

    On the contrary – it’s clear that on the fourth day Hashem said the sun should shine during the time-period that was called “day” and the stars/darkness should rule during the time-period called “night”. Since then, that hasnt changed, and obvisouly, as we can see today, the sun and the stars have decided that the time period called day plus the time period called night, are 24 hours.

    The Gemora says this expicitly. It describes 10 things that were created on the first day of creation, one of which is the “length of the day and night” – as it says, “vayehi erev vayehi voke yom echad”. So the time span of the day was created on the first day of creation. And, as Rashi states, it means “[the day and night together] – i.e. 24 hours between them”.

    G-d does not leave “room for doubt” in the sense that there is something for an objective person to doubt, when it comes to the existence of a Creator. All it means is that we have Bechirah to deny or to dount even though our denial or doubt make no sense.

    It’s a simple as a judge presiding over an open-and-shut case where the defendent is guilty. Open and shut, nothing to discuss. But the defendent is the judge’s own brother. The question is, will he say the truth or deny the truth – either to himself or to the public.

    Same with our Emunah. The existnece hashem is na open-and-shut case. But all the Yezter Horahs in the world tell us to deny it, in order to throw off all our restrictions. The question is, will we fool ourselves.

    The Ran says that the reason the aseres hadibros starts with Anochi Hashem, as opposed to “Thou shalt believe in me”, is because they certianly did believe before kabbalas hatorah, because anybody who is not an idiot (or willing to fool himself into being one) surely believes, since G-d’s existnce is so obvious. So it was meaningless for Hashem to tell them “thou shalt bleieve”. Instead, He introduced Himslef, as if to say “The G-d that you believe in — I am He!” Anochi hashem. And the Mitzvah of Emunah is therefore to believe not that G-d exists, since that’s simplicity – but to believe that the G-d that surely exists is the entity that took us our of Egypt and gave us the Torah — to bleieve that “I”. i.e. the One talking to us on Har Sinai, is in fact the G-d that we all know must exist.

    And no, I dont believe that people would find plenty of “scientific proofs” that there is no Hashem. I say that because they havent done so before or after evolution, since the idea of Kadmus Haolam, which has been logically disproven long ago.

    It’s simple math: the world is either accident or intelligence. If you want to be an atheist, your choice is accident.

    If accident. it was either at once or in stages. But that such a highly developed world can accidently all come at once , like “boom!” theres people, males, females. food, water, air, sunlight etc” all suddenly and at the same time is currently inexplicable.

    That leaves graduality, which means evolution.

    The exact mechanism whereby the graduality supposedly took place – survival of the fittest, sudden mutation, etc – is where the theories come in. But if youre goign to be an atheist, youre goign to have to find some way to validate evolution, because until they find somethgin else, evolution is the only way to explain a G-dless world. Thats why its worth spending our time showing what nonsense evolution is, because today, thats all the atheists have to hang their hats on. Once thats not an option, there is nothing left for them.

    And if they come up with some other silly idea, that too, will be worth spending our time to expose. But right now, this is all they have. And it is nothing.

  • #647700

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Proud Tatty,

    Isn’t claiming that evolution is not possible a limiting factor on Hashem? Isn’t it possible that’s the way Hashem chose to develop the world? If you read through the days of creation, there is a definitely a sense of evolutionary developement (meaning, development of land then animals in the water etc. Its a progression, which is essentially what evolution claims to be.

    Granted, I personally am very skeptical that evolution is the way the world was created, but I understand that its a possibility. I also understand that scientists may have missed the boat in certain areas (for example, maybe Hashem used evolution up until he got to Man and then created Adam seperately). There are a lot of unknowns.

    Its important to realize though that even IF evolution were true, it doesnt negate Hashem/Torah in any way. And thats a misconception that causes a lot of arguments.

  • #647701

    feivel
    Participant

    sj and ames

    SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY speaking, evolution is absurd and impossible. whether or not it can be compatible with the Torah is not a question that can even be asked.

    i have tried to demonstrate this in previous posts and could go on for weeks with more demonstrations of its ridiculousness. it is only through the vast cunningness and darkness of the Yetzer HaRah that so many could be fooled into embracing it.

  • #647702

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    Lets forget about all the proofs there are that evolution happend for a minute.

    Microevolution (small physical changes in animals shapes and colors caused by genentic mutations) has been observed in nature many times over.

    Do you have any logical reason for beleiving that these small gentic mutations would stop adding up at the point were the animal would be so changed in appearance (and geneticly for that matter) that we would calassify the animal as another “specie”?

    (Please note that the changes i am reffering to are genetic in nature and cannot be compared to say, working out your muscles.)

  • #647705

    if apes evolved into humans, why did some apes remain apes? and why are humans not continuing to evolve?

    and where did the apes come from in the first place?

  • #647708

    mepal
    Member

    DE, not all apes got the mutated gene. Humans keep changing; no 2 look alike!

  • #647709

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    OK, I did a little research. Four *consecutive* posters — Toras Moshe, Hill of Beans, Bogen and Will Hill, simply copied and pasted posts from Frumteens without attribution. That four consecutive posters did so from the same site gives me strong reason to think that they are one and the same.

    So, do me a favor “guys.” Read the Frumteens moderator’s posts, summarize them in your own words (and under one name), and then I’ll be back to debate you. If I wanted to argue with the FT moderator, I would have gone to his site directly. I’m too busy and have no desire to debate a copying machine.

    The Wolf

  • #647710

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    DE,

    You’ve read a (possibly purposely) distorted version of the theory. No one states that humans came from apes. The theory states that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

    The Wolf

  • #647711

    000646
    Participant

    “if apes evolved into humans, why did some apes remain apes?”

    No one says humans evovled from apes. Rather they say that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

    “and why are humans not continuing to evolve?”

    Who said they arn’t?

  • #647712

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Feivel, the exact conclusions that scientists have come up with may be correct, but a general evolutionary process may be the way Hashem set up the world. Just because scientists have looked at certain evidence and come up with a conclusion, doesnt mean the evidence is wrong. It could just be their conclusion.

    Microevolution is seen in nature all the time. So why couldn’t Hashem have used a macroevolution process to create the world? We really do not understand enough about creation to make an accurate conclusion.

    Do I think man came from monkey? No. But I do think the way the Torah has creation listed does sort of lend itself to an evolutionary process. Albeit, on directed by Hashem, not random happenstance.

  • #647713

    SJS & Feivel:

    Who really cares how we got here? (To paraphrase the gemorah) Now that we are here, we have to make the best of it & serve Hashem.

    Wolf: That actually makes sense. I wonder if it’s DK. If it is, please post as FKM.

  • #647714

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    GAW, ultimately, it doesnt. But its interesting to look at.

  • #647715

    Anonymous
  • #647716

    Anonymous

    Mr. Wolf I’m insulted it took you over two months to realize the initial source

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2?view=all#post-57766

  • #647717

    Anonymous

    Wolf, maybe I was the one who posted them on the other site as well

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2#post-57783

    Why did you only notice now?

  • #647718

    Anonymous
  • #647719

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I could have sworn there was a rule about only one username per person…

    The Wolf

  • #647720

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Wolf, maybe I was the one who posted them on the other site as well

    Okay, Will (or whatever you’re calling yourself for now): Are you the FT Moderator?

    The Wolf

  • #647721

    🙂

    Nominate for post of the year!

  • #647722

    feivel
    Participant

    ok zero

    you said you did not want to argue evolution again

    i also do not

    this will be my last post in this thread

    Lets forget about all the proofs there are that evolution happend for a minute.

    i forgot all the “proofs a long time ago, one by one as they crumbled.

    Microevolution (small physical changes in animals shapes and colors caused by genentic mutations) has been observed in nature many times over.

    yes, of oourse, you are talking about natural selection. they basically took the essential concept and called it by a new name “microevolution” as if this implies it is simply a small step towards “macroevolution” very clever indeed.

    of course there is natural selection! it simply means that given variation within a species, the variations that engender increased survival capabilities, will slowly develop higher concentrations in the gene pool. this is logical and Pashut.

    (by the way these changes are far more extensive than “shapes and colors”)

    (and by the way very very few of these changes are caused by “genetic mutations”, the vast majority are preexisting genetic variations and a few by errors during meiosis such as crossing-over and translocation errors. genetic mutations, which are the only mechanism capable of adding something truly “new” to the gene pool are almost ALWAYS injurious)

    “microevolution” (i even hate to write that deliberately misleading doublespeak word) does not add anything NEW (with rare exceptions, and of course the new characteristic has to function symphonically with the complex harmonious preexisting system of characteristics)

    Do you have any logical reason for beleiving that these small gentic mutations would stop adding up at the point were the animal would be so changed in appearance (and geneticly for that matter) that we would calassify the animal as another “specie”?

    well let me ask you a rhetorical question: do you have any logical reason for believing that making gradual small improvements in the microsoft word program could add up until the software would become an aviation simulation program?

  • #647724

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    If you made a microsoft program that copied itself with mutations, and the mutations that more closly resembled an aviation program (by no matter how small an amount) were more likley to copy themselves that those that didnt then yes, given enough time you would eventualy be producing aviation programs.

  • #647725

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    Did I log into the wrong site?

    Admittedly, not all posts are so terrible. But too many here are unacceptable for this site and open our minds to twisted, crooked ways of thinking.

    This is not the place to argue with people that are having trouble believing in the Torah and Hashem. There are special sites that cater to this

    I’m already feeling sorry for those that will sneer or chuckle at my post and think: This areivim is completely naive, narrow-minded, uneducated and simple-minded

  • #647726

    Anonymous

    Did I post under the wrong username again?

    MAN O’ Man!!

  • #647727

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Can’t you just answer a simple question? Are you the FT Moderator (in which case I will apologize for the accusation of plagiarism), or not (and therefore, you plagarized)?

    The Wolf

  • #647728

    Anonymous

    This gets so confusing I’m not as quick with this as I used to be.

  • #647729

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel you said,

    “and by the way very very few of these changes are caused by “genetic mutations”, the vast majority are preexisting genetic variations and a few by errors during meiosis such as crossing-over and translocation errors.”

    When evolutionists use the word “Mutation” it includes errors during meosis and gene replication as well.

  • #647730

    absamso
    Participant

    Feivel,

    I’m a little confused. You keep claiming that evolution has no logical basis. Then you point out that it’s foundations are entirely logical, up to one point you don’t explain. So let’s see:

    1) There exist variation in nature

    2) Variations are passed down

    3) Those variations best adapted to the environment of the organism will be most successful, and thus the organisms will move in that direction.

    4) Repeat 1-4.

    You’re fine with this, but claim it could not possibly lead to grand scale change between species. With enough time, how could it possibly do anything else?

    Your Microsoft Word analogy is dishonest; you’re looking for it to turn into something else. Evolution doesn’t aim to turn sheep into zebras, though. The point is that an organism keeps changing in slight ways, and those changes as up, as they would have to. So can you please pinpoint the illogic here? It seems you earlier admitted that evolution poses no real problem to anyone who believes Hashem is guiding it, and now you have here shown no case for why it is “illogical” (actually, you outlined the logic of natural selection fairly nicely).

    As to whoever asked why there are still older species around today–natural selection is more complicated than that. The point isn’t that one species “defeats” another. That’s a misperception of it. The question is which groups are best adapted to a particular environment, so a species can “splinter.”

  • #647734

    Anonymous

    and maybe I’m not

  • #647735

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Forget it. Have fun knocking yourself out with multiple user names. I have no time for sock puppets who simply cut and paste. When you’re ready to seriously debate an issue, feel free to drop me an email.

    The Wolf

  • #647736

    feivel
    Participant

    the following is a quote from my last post

    i hope it will not be considered as a new post

    i do not wish my word to be questioned

    ok zero

    you said you did not want to argue evolution again

    i also do not

    this will be my last post in this thread

  • #647737

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    Feivel, obviously by starting a thread, you are going to get a discussion going.

    Areivim, you must specify what exactly it is that you ocnsider apikursis. Nobody here has denied HKBH as the Borei Olam. However, we need to divide this thread into subthreads to analyze that claim.

    1) Is saying that species evolved from other species apikursis, If so, why?

    2) Is saying that the first life form randomly self-assembled from inanimate elements (abiogenesis) apikursis? (Sounds like it, but still leaves room for the Borei to have created the elements and the laws of nature which caused that reaction, so not necessarily.)

    3) Is saying dinosaurs once roamed the earth apikursis? (Note there are some chareidi families who will not allow any mention of them, and will take away stuffed toy dinosaurs from little kids?)

    4) Is saying that the earth can be more than 6000 years old and the days of bresihis are non-literal or begin from Adam considered apikursis? Again, why? Aren’t there some shitas which hold this way? Don’t Chazal say that the whole Sefer Iyov was only a mashal?

    So you need to back up that any of the above is apikursis. (I understand that many people have been conditioned to scream apikursis at any mention of the word evolution, but as before, there are many aspects of the whole theory, and not all or even any may necessarily be considered apikursis. Again, bring rayos. Note that R. Slifkin does bring rayos that many of the above points are found in Chazal. Again, mas somebody mentioned, what do we care what mechanism and intermediates Hashem may have used to create us. As long as we believe he did, what is the problem?

  • #647738

    absamso
    Participant

    Very well put, Pashuteh Yid.

  • #647740

    I can answer point 1 (which is quite obvious). A mule is not a horse or a donkey. but offspring of both. Obvoiusly species can be created from other species. We also see genetic mutations passed down to offspring, which are “different species”.

    What we see happen can not be “Apikorsus”.

  • #647741

    anon for this
    Participant

    GAW, two mules cannot mate & bear young, so I don’t think they’d be considered a new species. (There have, hoever, been documented cases of female mules producing offspring when mated to male horses or donkeys).

  • #647742

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    PY- I give you credit for breaking it down clearly. However, I still feel this is not the place to even consider this direction of thinking. The implications of this thread are poisonous for those that do not have solid hashkofos and/or enough info/backing.

    This thread is completely defeating the purpose of an exclusively FRUM Jewish website.

    Why are we trying to dig past basic beliefs? This is not a debate between Rabbi & Priest.

    This discussion rings too many alarm bells in my brain. I stand by my conviction that this topic does not belong on YWN.

  • #647743

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    Areivim, I hear your concerns. As I mentioned before, I never believed that evolution was mathematically possible. However, the issue you raise of kids with shailas can go two ways. On one hand we don’t want to raise questions in the mind of children. But on the other hand, the reality is that many kids have questions on their own. If we stifle all talk of evolution, then some kids who can’t get answers may leave the fold. Most kids these days are too sophisticated to simply listen to someone telling them they are not allowed to ask, or that all scientists are fools and liars. For those kids, I think that R. Slifkin’s approach is a life-saver. For other kids, it may be detrimental. I think the key is we must be honest with our kids. If they have questions, then we can tell them that there are Torah approaches to dealing with these matters which do not involve negating current scientific thought in any way.

    As an aside, my own hashkafa is that the RBSH gave us the Torah for only one reason which is to teach us how to live in shalom with each other and appreciate every yid. All the other details are secondary (as per Hillel). So it matters not a hoot whether there were dinosaurs or not. Teach the kids to appreciate the warmth and kindness of the Torah, and the friendship and fun of having so many relatives (extended family). They will not want to stray if this message is constantly reinforced. You can tell them that in public school, there can be the most vicious taunting by classmates of any random child. It happens all the time. It does not generally happen in any yeshiva in which midos are the core. It is one big happy family. Most yeshiva kids have happy memories of school, which I have read is not at all the case in public school.

    When a child is made to understand that this is the ikar of yiddishkeit, he will realize how fortunate he is to have teachers and classmates that care about him, because they learned that from Avraham Avinu. Similarly, if it is stressed that the discipline of learning Torah has led to Jewish success in many other areas as well, he will develop a sense of pride in his religion. All this positive is what keeps kids on the derech. I don’t believe that taking a negative, sarcastic approach to the outside world or to scientists is the approach that is most likely to lead to a lifelong commitment. This is why I always say the RBSH gave us the Torah for our sake, not for his ego.

    I always used to believe that the fossils don’t show anything, because they would find a small bone fragment, and construct a model 100 feet tall. However, I am indebted to R. Slifkin for alerting me to the possibility that we should consider the evidence honestly and unbiased, because it doesn’t contradict the Torah either way. If there are enough bones to really piece together a dinosaur, then fine; if there seem to be too few, and too much personal creativity on the part of the modeler, then that’s also fine. Let us just look for the emes.

  • #647744

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel said,

    “genetic mutations, which are the only mechanism capable of adding something truly “new” to the gene pool are almost ALWAYS injurious”

    This statement is simply just false.

    For example the average human being typicly has about 50-100 mutations of which 3 actually change a protein (they are not what are known as “silent” mutations which dont change any proteins and have no real effect on their organisim whatsoever),if the vast majority of mutations were injurios as you claim, humans (and all other life for that matter) would have been extinct long ago.

    Most mutations that actually change a protein are neither harmfull or beneficial in of themselves, rather are simply diffrent.

    If the vast majority of mutations will prove to be harmfull or not would depend on the enviroment were the organisim which has any particular mutation finds itself.

    (For example a mutation that causes an animal to have darker skin will prove beneficial to the animal if it finds itself in an enviroment with a dark surface as it would make it harder to spot but harmfull if it finds itself on a light one were it will make it easier to spot.)

  • #647745

    Jax
    Member

    i’m with areivim, i’ve been reading this thread & not posting, since seeing the way it spun after a few posts! this is YWN & a topic like this should be shut down!

  • #647746

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    PY- this will go a bit off topic. Your position vs. mine is a common chalukei dayos that applies across the board.

    I obviously side with the position that we should go main-stream, especially on a public forum!

    Those with questions should get their answers- but in an appropriate time, place, forum and- from the right PEOPLE (not your local CR’nik).

  • #647747

    Jax
    Member

    ames: did they[the school] rip the pages of evolution out of your science books in school?!

  • #647748

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Areivim, I understand your point, but I think anyone who uses a thread like this to veer off the derech is looking for excuses. Also, I think its important to point out that everyone in this thread has unequivically stated that whatever happened, Hashem was the ultimate catalyst. I think thats a point many people miss – however the world was created, it was done so at Hashem’s will and direction.

    Ames, I am totally with you on that. Even in my modern orthodox high school they really wouldn’t discuss this. They didn’t outright call it kefira, but they were not open to discussion. I think the teen years are when most people start really questioning life and Judaism. If you make a topic so taboo and just give people mussar, they will never be satisfied. Unfortunately, teens have many questions that just do not get answered and I think that leads to so many of them going off the derech.

    Now, my childhood Rav thinks evolution as presented is 100% garbage. I never asked him if it was the man-monkey connected or just the general theory. I think I’m going to discuss this with him the next time I see him – he is well educated in biology so he has a lot more insight than I do!

  • #647749

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    I agree Rabbeim and Teachers should be equipped. However, the major difference in our opinions is: discussing it outright for ALL vs. making available to those that need. There’s a big gap between the two

  • #647751

    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    I just wanted to add the following:

    If there was someone in the CR with real questions, I would say to answer them; and maybe even guide them to an appropriate authority figure where they can get more of what they seek. But to open up a discussion that leads to these questions of doubt….

  • #647752

    squeak
    Participant

    SJS – the topic is taboo for one simple reason: The teachers and rabbeim that you ask do not know the answers (or even the questions). Rather than saying “I don’t know but you can ask so and so” they tend to brush off the questions one way or another.

    I agree, these topics should be discussable. There exists no question that cannot be answered properly. In fact, some of the theories (such as the expanding universe theory related to the BB) logically leads to the idea of a Creator (the expansion had to start at some point). But I also agree with areivim – these topics are very complex and should be answered thoughtfully and carefully – NOT in a public forum. Books have been written addressing these questions, though.

Viewing 95 reply threads
  • The topic ‘A Theory Made of Water Vapor’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to RSS Feed For This Article