The Hoax known as man-made “Global Warming”

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics The Hoax known as man-made “Global Warming”

Viewing 166 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #588556

    chachom
    Member

    A small forest of pulpwood has been clear-cut and thousands of keystrokes have been exhausted by the indispensable media heralds warning us about the looming catastrophe from manmade CO2. While in fact the global warming science is rather dubious and legitimate skeptics appear to be thinning (according to MIT professor Richard Lindzen WSJ Opinion Journal 4/12/06) — intimidated, muzzled and shunned if they dare speak up– how can serious debunkers of this new junk science get an audience? Well, don’t bother. It doesn’t really matter.

    Unlike some previous hysterical screeds, such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, long on deceptive compelling rhetoric but short on facts, which actually tolled millions of lives lost to malaria over 35 years as DDT was banned around the globe, this latest science fiction isn’t likely to create such a tragic legacy. Curbing our appetite for burning fossil fuels may be a “good thing”. No doubt Martha Stewart agrees.

    As hoaxes, deceptions and hyperbole go, this one may be the biggest and hardest to shake. Following a pattern from other panics, clever entrepreneurs and global corporations alike will make a handsome profit, some even obscene, employing the 16th century idiom “a fool and his money are soon parted.” Of course government bureaucrats, never actually in danger of a recession or natural devastation affecting their lifetime employment, will have found another justification for tenure.

    Piltdown Man, a spectacular anthropological fossil remains hoax dating to 1912, debunked after 40 years of painstaking research, produced a generation of amateur archeologists who took up digging anywhere and everywhere. Shovel, pickaxe and brush companies had a bonanza. Land surveying became the hot new profession while geological surveys couldn’t be reprinted fast enough.

    Remember the fears over nuclear annihilation in the 1950s? Fallout shelters were the rage in new construction. Jobs for masons skyrocketed and the makers of Portland cement and concrete blocks couldn’t keep up with demand. Tin can manufacturers put on extra shifts to meet the orders from tuna fish and Spam processors, all needed for doomsday larders that were certain to come in handy, any day now.

    How many of the hundreds of thousands of computer programmers and IT geeks would have been on the street if it hadn’t been for the fears of a repeat of the Last Days of Pompeii from the dreaded Y2K millennium virus? Meanwhile the hardware upgrades and new software firewalls contributed several basis points to GDP in 1999. Predictably, as soon as dawn broke on the new millennium, it was apparent that the world was safe from invading alien bits and bites. Without missing a beat, the Y2K consultants quickly retooled for the next end-of-the-world scenario, the SARS epidemic, and two years ago, the bird flu pandemic.

    A resurgence in building new nuclear generating capacity could sure cure the global warming blues in a hurry and restore the good name to an abandoned, disgraced profession. How many nuclear power engineers have been in hibernation, living under assumed names, selling insurance or working as greeters at WalMart since the last nuke plant was built over 30 years ago? It’s time for nuclear power people to come out of the closet, restore the luster to a formerly respected line of work and rescue the planet.

    Finally, let’s not forget the most important side benefit of the global warming circus-keeping Al Gore from another wind mill-tilting run at the Oval Office. Who could replace the pure entertainment value of his vein-popping, electrified hair, neuro-psychotic ventilations rivaling the 1935 hysterical shrieking of Elsa Manchester in the best horror film ever, “The Bride of Frankenstein”? And to think we will be treated by another one of his can’t-miss performances during the upcoming US Senate hearings, Nobel prize acceptance ceremony and the Oscars.

    Where is the downside from reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East ? Besides, now’s the time to conserve and stockpile coal and crude oil for when it will really be needed-the coming ice age-due to reduced solar radiation. — which is actually more plausible than any manmade climate shift. But that’s another story.

    But what about having to endure the endless intellectual dishonesty from the global warming doomsayers? Look, don’t let it ruin a good martini. Get over it.

  • #1090816

    chachom:

    Global Warming has been proven to be caused by man. Why do you think it’s a hoax?

    Check this out:

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/31/arctic-antarctica-climate.html

  • #1090817

    Joseph
    Member

    I still recall when they were peddling “Global Cooling.” After that fell through, Global Warming became the new leftist fad.

  • #1090818

    feivel
    Participant

    where is that article from?

    the references to Spam (ground hog-meat) and martinis makes me surmise you didnt write this.

  • #1090819

    feivel:

    Of course I didn’t write that article! It comes from Discovery News – ever heard of Discovery Channel?

  • #1090820

    oomis
    Member

    Always quote your sources – that’s just good sense. The late author Michael Crichton

    believed strongly in what you posted and wrote a novel based on that exact premise. There was a great deal of scientific information interspersed with the fantasy, but at the core, much of it made sense. Of course, this WAS a novel (and dinosaurs are not being grown from ancient DNA, hopefully), but it did have some interesting points to ponder.

  • #1090821

    feivel
    Participant

    my question was directed to the original poster

  • #1090822

    chachom
    Member

    Last year in the American Thinker.

  • #1090823

    feivel:

    Oh. I assumed you meant my link – I didn’t even read the original poster’s article, just the name of the thread.

  • #1090824

    Joseph
    Member

    gmab, do you always comment without reading the article, or just sometimes?

  • #1090825

    Joseph:

    Rarely do I not read the article. But the thread’s title sort of gave away the subject.

  • #1090826

    yoshi
    Member

    Anything that sounds scary to people suddenly becomes a “hoax.” Oh no, the boogy man is going to get you!

    p.s. Do your research, global warming is reality.

  • #1090827

    anon for this
    Participant

    Actually the only part of the article I agree with is that nuclear power is the way to go. It produces zero particulate emissions & no CO2. And if we build enough plants to bring the price of electricity down then electric cars would be a practical option to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

    But even there the author did not get his information correct. He wrote that no nuclear plant has been built in the past 30 years; actually Watts Bar Unit 1 was completed in 1996, and Unit 2 is under construction now, scheduled to be completed in 2013.

  • #1090828

    Joseph
    Member

    There is global warming and then there is “man-made” global warming. The idea that man can control climate and change what is in G-d’s province, aside from being absurd, has been thoroughly discredited. We humans do not have any control over the climate. Period, end of discussion.

  • #1090829

    Joseph:

    That’s like saying that a man can’t burn down a forest because it’s in HaShem’s hands. Don’t be silly.

  • #1090830

    Joseph
    Member

    gmab, Hashem gave man power with fire and wood. Hashem did not give man power to change the weather (climate).

  • #1090831

    anon for this
    Participant

    Joseph, please give your source for the idea that Hashem did not give people power to change the climate.

  • #1090832

    Bogen
    Participant

    Believing that global warming is controlled by man is pure kefira (and shtuss).

  • #1090833

    anon for this
    Participant

    Why is it kefira to believe that people can affect the climate? Please give a source for this.

  • #1090834

    Joseph:

    We do have the ability to impact the climate – if you light a bonfire, and stand near it, don’t you feel the heat in the air? You have just temporarily altered the climate in the immediate area!

    Bogen:

    Perhaps you’d like to explain how believing in man-made global warming is heresy?

  • #1090835

    mw13
    Participant

    1) Isn’t it ridiculous the same weathermen who can’t reliably tell us if it’ll rain in 2 days because global weather systems are so incredibly complicated, are now telling us that in 10 years it’ll be exactly 57.92 degrees hotter than it is now?!

    2) Despite the left’s doomsday predictions, no one really knows what earth’s overall weather patterns actually are. According to modern day science there have been 4 ice ages in earth’s history. No one knows what caused them, or how they disappeared.

    So when all’s said and done, scientists need to do a lot more research into global weather patterns before they can begin to decree that the world is coming to an end.

  • #1090836

    Will Hill
    Member

    mw13,

    The flimsy science behind global warming is a debunkable joke.

  • #1090837

    Bentzy18
    Participant

    Global warming doesn’t bother me as much as the other toxins that we are constantly putting into the air and environment. I have faith that Hashem will protect the human race from destruction on a mass scale. The effects of global warming are still assumptions and are constantly being remodified. However, there is an increase of kids being born with severe allergies (does anyone here over 30 remember having any school going nut free?) ranging from food to airborne. (I.e. asthma).

    Also on a smaller scale, I have seen the affects of pollution in the air. Thankfully are cars are more efficient as well as give off, less pollution.

  • #1090838

    “Isn’t it ridiculous the same weathermen who can’t reliably tell us if it’ll rain in 2 days because global weather systems are so incredibly complicated, are now telling us that in 10 years it’ll be exactly 57.92 degrees hotter than it is now!?”

    Where on earth did you get this data? Scientific research shows that the temperature has risen one degree in the past century. This is quite significant given the age of the universe and the rate at which temperatures have historically fluctuated, but no sane scientist would ever predict that the temperature will rise by tens of degrees in a mere decade. Furthermore, the calculations that do exist are nowhere near as precise as you make them out to be.

    99% of the scientific community (one has to allow for a few nutters) agree that global warming is fact, not hoax. The universe is steadily rising in temperature. They only disagree on its cause- whether or not the warming is human-induced. There is strong support for the position that it is, since temperatures spiked after the world was industrialized, but nevertheless there are a good number of scientists who disagree with this position.

  • #1090839

    Feif Un
    Member

    There have been just as many studies showing that global warming is not caused by man, but they have been buried.

    Scientists say there was an ice age at one point. After that, temperatures obviously rose. Was that man-made global warming? No. The earth goes through different cycles, and this is just another one of them.

  • #1090840

    Joseph
    Member

    Global Warming, like Evolution, has become a false religion that if anyone dares disprove (which have easily and successfully been done on both counts) they are demagogued and viciously attacked by the adherents of these false religions (global warming and evolution.)

  • #1090841

    If global warming and evolution are so “easy to disprove”, why don’t you show us some proof?

  • #1090842

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Joseph, I once heard a really nice speech about how evolution fits nicely into Judaism (minus the man came from monkey). After all, evolution is all about adapatation – why couldnt Hashem have put the materials in place for evolution to take place?

  • #1090843

    Joseph
    Member

    jf02, disprove what? Show us some of your “proof” (if you have any — which you do NOT), so we can disprove your so-called “proof.”

  • #1090844

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Evolution has been proven as a fact from virtualy evrey branch of the natural sciences

    yes there ARE hundreds if not thousands of transitional fossils and there are plenty of cases of half devolped lungs,wings and eyes around today, please dont misqoute S.J. gould and others statements about Puncuated equlibrium that there arnt any, as these are taken completly out of context all these pepole are saying is that the amount of fossils found make the most sense according to there theory of P.E. all scientists even michael behe of the id movement (author of darwins black box) beleives in commen decent he just says that cetain systems such as the immune system and the bacteriel flagglem would need divine help as they are “irreducebly complex” and would only work when complete, after publishing a paper to this effect he was shown 54 diffrent papers on how the immune system could have evolved and also a large amount on the flagglem

    the only argument any that can be said against it is that maybe hashem planted all the proofs just yo test are faith.

  • #1090845

    Will Hill
    Member

    jewishfeminist02, the burden of proof is upon you. YOU claim it exists, PROOF IT!

  • #1090846

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Evolution has been proven as a fact from virtualy evrey branch of the natural sciences

    yes there ARE hundreds if not thousands of transitional fossils and there are plenty of cases of half devolped lungs,wings and eyes around today, please dont misqoute S.J. gould and others statements about Puncuated equlibrium that there arnt any, as these are taken completly out of context all these pepole are saying is that the amount of fossils found make the most sense according to there theory of P.E. all scientists even michael behe of the id movement (author of darwins black box) beleives in commen decent he just says that cetain systems such as the immune system and the bacteriel flagglem would need divine help as they are “irreducebly complex” and would only work when complete, after publishing a paper to this effect he was shown 54 diffrent papers on how the immune system could have evolved and also a large amount on the flagglem

    the only argument any that can be said against it is that maybe hashem planted all the proofs just yo test are faith.

  • #1090847

    Will Hill
    Member

    jewishfeminist02, the burden of proof is upon you. YOU claim it exists, PROOF IT!

  • #1090848

    eric55
    Participant

    jewishfeminist02 first you have to show proof from any credible scientist that it is man made. so far there is none its called junk science, there is no conclusive study that proves it is. as far as a study disproving man made GW i’m not aware of any maybe there is maybe there isn’t but what i know for sure is there’s none that it is man made. so before they make the whole world crazy i think they should have a conclusive study first don’t you think!

  • #1090849

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    please post some of your “proofs” against both evolution and global warming

    thank you.

  • #1090850

    000646
    Participant

    The idea that there are no proofs that evolution happend is one that can only be said out of complete ignorance as it is one of the most well proven theorys of modern science from all fields independently.

    (even without the fossil evedence it would be apparent from observing simalaraties in D.N.A, stucture and behavior in living animals among other proofs.)

    Evolution has and is even being observed nowadays with animals changing colors, sizes and behavior!

    Some pepole try to say this is just Micro evolution but that macro evolution isnt possable however the fallacy of this argument is apparent when you realize the fact that if you were to make enough micro changes it would end up being a macro change,

    for example if you only bred the shortest elephents with the smallest trunks from each litter or if they for some reason or another lived and reproduced for longer in the wild for enough thousands of years untill they were the size of mice without trunks wich is what would happen if you kept making enough thousands (or millions or hundreds of millions) of “micro” changes to there body and trunk sizes there is no way they could be possibly called the same species and the only simalaritys would be on the dna or some resemblance in the skeleton to elephants that either werent bred this way or didnt have this pressure in the wild.

  • #1090851

    oomis
    Member

    I think there are other options as to how fossils come to be found. It may very well be s test of our emunah, that Hashem put them in the earth, as some have suggested. It may also be that The Flood completely macerated and altered the bones of living animals that perished in it, so as to make them unrecognizable as the species that they were and give them the appearance of elongation or shrinkage (as in certain dinosaurs). It is possible that both animals and people were a very different size from those which we know today with some animals being unusually large and human beings having extremely small stature. Also, maybe some of those animals were among those which had copulated unnaturally, and resulted in mutant creatures.

    We should ask ourselves why we are so concerned with whether or not these beings existed millions of years ago. Hashem could create and did create anything He so chose. Is it so hard to understand that His timeline and ours could be so very different? I have never had a problem with evolution, because I understand as something coming from within Brias Haolam. And btw, just ebcause science has various theories about the origins of life, does not mean that those theories are anything other than good educated guesses. Many theories once upon a time abounded, which have since proved to be incorrect.

  • #1090852

    Global warming… Just answer these basic questions….

    1) Does Al Gore have a degree in ecology, geology, biology, zoology, herbology (or any other -ology that relates to plants, animals, Earth and humans?)

    2) If he does believe in it, why does he have a private plane, limos, mansions (how many??!!??!!) SUVs ect? He is destroying the enviorment every time he goes off to speak about protecting it! Why wont he use public transportation, commercial airlines…?

    3) Weren’t they predicting a global-cooling from the 1940s-1970s because the average global temperature went down significantly? Weren’t we heading towards a mini-ice age? Wait! Hold on there! CO2 emissions were skyrocketing then! So, as more was used, the colder it got! I got it! So by decreasing car usage ect our temperature is going down now- isn’t that what they are saying?

  • #1090853

    oomis (formerly “oomis1015”?):

    Yes, HaShem may test our emunah, but certainly not by way of deceit. If fossils clearly indicate the truth about evolution, then HaShem wouldn’t put them there “just to test us.”

  • #1090854

    Joseph
    Member

    havesomeseichel, I remember the news still was crechtzing about scientist worrying about “Global Cooling” in the early ’90’s.

  • #1090855

    000646
    Participant

    Oomis,

    I agree with you that evolution dosnt pose any problems to yiddishkeit but this theory is so well proven and makes so much sense that it is much much more then an educated guess, the theories that “once upon a time abounded” didnt have near this amount of proof

    To say it is not proven is just not true and qouting sicentists (such as s.j.gould) out of context is just dishonest, for some reason however both tactics are used all to often by well meaning pepole in books and speeches meant to strengthen emunah or do kiruv and it makes frum pepole seem ignorant and naive to many.

  • #1090856

    Actually, the “burden of proof” is on Joseph for stating in the first place that both evolution and global warming could be “easily disproven”. You initiated it; now you’re challenging me?

  • #1090857

    charliehall
    Member

    Global warming has occurred. Data even are posted on the internet for everyone to see.

    Whether global warming was mostly caused by human activity is a legitimate scientific question; the long term rise over the past 130 years is strongly correlated with human activity and there are not a lot of other explanations that haven’t been ruled out.

    The big question is what to do about it. The conservative (small “c”) approach would be to try to limit future human contribution because the potential rise in sea level from an ice sheet melt would be cataclysmic. A full melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet would raise sea level by about 7 meters worldwide, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has a similar volume.

  • #1090858

    Wait a minute- let everyone prove their points and how the other one is wrong. Prove to us that there is such a thing as global warming and we’ll show you that you’re wrong. let’s be fair about this and fight like adults and not those who say “you are a _________ if you disagree…” (please fill in the blank with your choice of: athiest, frei-thinker, close-minded….)

  • #1090859

    “Prove to us that there is such a thing as global warming and we’ll show you that you’re wrong.”

    If you’ve already drawn your conclusions, why should I bother showing you any proof?

  • #1090860

    charliehall
    Member

    I can’t prove it here because YWN doesn’t accept outside links. There are plenty of internet sites that present graphs of temperature time series.

  • #1090861

    Will Hill
    Member

    If anyone believes in the lies of manmade global warming or evolution, please prove it.

  • #1090862

    000646
    Participant

    I have the same problem that charliehall has (not being able to post outside links) and the subject matter is to large to write all of the proofs in full on this forum however i will some ideas as bkitzer as i can,

    First of all evolution happens. We can see it. one example off the top of my head is domesticated dogs there is no such thing in the wild of most of the species of dogs that are domestic breeds simply because these breeds were “created” in captivity by slecting certain traits and breeding for them it only makes sense that in the wild certain traits would give a creature a better chance at survival and would cause them to develop more and more (kinda like the elephent example i gave in the earlier post except substitute the elephant for say a flying squirrel and the size of the trunk and body to the size of the “wings” (wich are in reality flaps of skin) and distance it can fly.) the argument that this is just “micro” evolution simply misses the point as enough “micro” changes will end up being a “macro” change

    second of all from the dna evidence:

    most of the dna strand in all animals is mostly the same this is extremly suggestive of commen ancestry

    third of all the fossil evidence

    we see layers of fossils without fail going from less complex to more complex, even one mammal skull in a place were they shouldnt have been evolved yet would disprove the theory and this has not happend once since they started discovering fossils

    there are tons of other proofs that can be found in most advanced biology books but are beyond my scope to write here

  • #1090863

    mw13
    Participant
  • #1090864

    The Big One
    Member

    There was a dude Mr. Natan Slifkin who wrote some books that evolution happened.

    Almost all the Gedolim in both Eretz Yisroel and America deemed these books KEFIRA.

  • #1090865

    mazal77
    Member

    Also, as far a the world being considered millions of years old, Hashem made the world. He could make it have that lived in aged look. He IS the creator of course. This all boils down to a belief in Hashem. How would scientists know what a brand new planet is suppose to look like anyway?? Unless, they figured out how to make new planet…

  • #1090866

    1) we only have records of global temps for how long? How do you know that it is not a cycle? It goes down, then up, then down, then up again! Historically, we know that there were colder winter seasons, many times over the space of decades, and there were warmer periods.

    2) in the last few years, Argentina got it’s first snow storm in decades! (If I remember correctly, it was in almost a century…) Los Angeles, known to get to triple digits in the summertime, had temps in the winter a few years ago that were cold enough that the dew froze on the grass and there were ice patches on the sidewalks! could that be from the Earth warming up?

  • #1090867

    And I hate to break it to you, the Big One, but how many of these people actually read RABBI SLIFKIN’s books?

    While I personaly believe that his problems with the biblical text did not warrant a non-literal interpretation of the bible, how about the fact that maybe he just made an error?

    Why wasn’t Schroeder banned? Did he say anything different then Slifkin? (significantly)

    And for the record … if I were to ever right a book, I would hope it gets banned, because then my sales wuold go through the roof!!!

  • #1090868

    000646
    Participant

    MAZAL 77,

    I agree that hashem could have made the world look old and make it look like evolution happend i also beleive hashem could have made the world just look round but really be flat it says in (many psukim “mearbah kanfos haaretz” ) or that the sun goes around the earth and hashem could have made it look like the earth goes around the sun

    however i beleive this is an irrational and unreasonable approach

  • #1090869

    000646
    Participant

    Mazal,

    you also dont have a shred of proof to the idea that hashem just created the world to look this way and it actualy isnt,

    the fact that hashem could do somthing is not proof that he actually did.

    as i said before there is about the same chance that hashem made the world flat and just makes it look round as there is that evolution didnt happen and the world is young.

    the are plenty of mehalchim and books that explain how this dosnt contradict the torah by r’schroeder r’aryeh kaplan and r’slifkin among others

    of course you are entitled to beleive whatever you want (there is no law aginst joining the Flat earth society either!) but please dont say that there is no conclusive evidence to these things (evolution and an old earth) as that is simply not true and you are just making yourself and (possibly other frum yidden) look ignorant and or naive by saying this.

  • #1090870

    feivel
    Participant

    “third of all the fossil evidence

    we see layers of fossils without fail going from less complex to more complex, even one mammal skull in a place were they shouldnt have been evolved yet would disprove the theory and this has not happend once since they started discovering fossils”

    im not going to argue evolution

    but the above is clearly the opposite of the current evolutionary truth.

    and it’s not me saying that but almost all the higher end evolutionists such as gould say so. the fossil record is a huge problem for DARWINIAN evolution (slow gradual change). which is the reason for the modern new idea of “punctuated equilibrium”.

    the fossil record according to modern theory is not a problem or proof for evolution per say, only a problem for darwinian evolution, and a proof for neither.

    of course the remnant of the darwinian evolutionists say that punctuated equilibrium is crazy. the upholders of punctuated equilibrium say that darwinian evolution is crazy. i say they are both right.

  • #1090871

    May I ask how, exactly, does neo-Darwinism conflict with the Torah?

  • #1090872

    feivel
    Participant

    gmab

    assuming you are asking me:

    neo-darwinism and puntctuated equilibrium are two completely different concepts

    i didnt say anything about either neo-darwinism or the Torah.

  • #1090873

    yoshi
    Member

    I’m sure some, or perhaps many of you are well learned in the Torah, but, are any of you scientists?

    Have any of you personally done research or study science? I’m not talking about a course taken, or a science class from high school and/or college. I’m speaking of those individuals who possess proper credentials on this subject such as a PhD.

    Or are many of you just quoting what you googled, read, or heard from an unreliable/uneducated source?

    Evolution is an extensive, complex subject, that takes many years of studying to even somewhat comprehend the magnitude of it all. Even scientists are stumped in many areas of evolution.

    P.S. I am not a scientist, but when you grow up with one, you start feeling like you’re in science classes all day.

  • #1090874

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    not showing all the steps of gradual change is very diffrent then more complex organisims being found before less complex ones,

    you are right that no complete sequences of transitional fossils have been found (wich is pretty much what you would expect as fossilasation is not all that common) however alot of transitional forms HAVE been found.

    More complex forms appearing before less complex ones has NEVER happend and that is what i said,

    I never said that complete sequences of transitional fossils have been found because that wouldnt be neccesary to the point i was making (of fossils never being found out of the order we would expect if evolution happend).

  • #1090875

    feivel
    Participant

    000646

    im not arguing with you, though what you are saying is patently false

    s. g. gould and his colleagues, the evolutionists in the higher universities are arguing with you.

    they state categorically that the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT GRADUAL EVOLUTION,

    this is why they rely on punctuated equilibrium to maintain evolution. even the uptodate lowly high school teachers know this.

    they also argue with you as to your statement: “More complex forms appearing before less complex ones has NEVER happend” in fact it has happened in a large number of instances. which is why they came up with the explanation of cataclysmic events, such as meteors, or gigantic tsunamis which overturned the strata in a number of locations.

    if you want to believe in evolution, go ahead, but you should update yourself as to the numerous critical changes in the theory in the last 10-20 years.

  • #1090876

    000646
    Participant

    yoshi,

    no i am not a scientist however i have read many reliable books on the subject by peopole such as Richard dawkins S.J. gould, michael shermer, michael behe (darwins black box) & michael denton (evolution a theory in crisis) among other less well known authors.

    i have also read jewish books by gerald schroeder, R Natan slifkin and rabbi aryeh kaplan on one side rabbi waldman and r avigdor miller and some other less well known authors on the other side

    i do NOT think this make me an expert by any far stretch of the

    imaganation however if you were to only beleive things that you had a phd in most of us wouldnt beleive in very much!

  • #1090877

    000646
    Participant

    feivel,

    i have never said once anything about gradual as opposed to non gradual evolution so stop saying that.

    the cases were you claim more complex forms are found before less complex ones have only happend were it is apparant that there was some event not related to the fossil forms found, research it yourself.

  • #1090878

    feivel
    Participant

    “the cases were you claim more complex forms are found before less complex ones have only happend were it is apparant that there was some event not related to the fossil forms found, research it yourself. “

    i dont have to research it i already stated exactly that: “it has happened in a large number of instances. which is why they came up with the explanation of cataclysmic events, such as meteors, or gigantic tsunamis which overturned the strata in a number of locations.” the events are not apparent, they were theorized.

  • #1090879

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    it IS apparent from things other then the fossils of the organisims themselves when the events you mentioned happen.

    Once again you can and should research these things before you talk about them.

  • #1090880

    000646
    Participant

    Feivel,

    S.J. gould clearly says that the fossil record DOES show support for the theory of evolution,

    he just says that the amount of transitional fossils (yes there ARE plenty of them) found support his and Nile eldriges theory of P.E. that evolution happens relativley “rapidly” (over hundreds of thousands of years as opposed to hundreds of millions of years.)

    saying that he or any other evolutionist said that the fossil record does not support evolution is simply not true.

  • #1090881

    yoshi
    Member

    000646 – “i do NOT think this make me an expert by any far stretch of the imaganation however if you were to only beleive things that you had a phd in most of us wouldnt beleive in very much!”

    Albert Einstein was a big fan in the power of imagination. He had once said, “Imagination is stronger than knowledge.

    Knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world.”

    Keep using that imagination of yours, it will make you a wiser person as the years pass.

    On a personal note:

    Imagination in conjunction with Knowledge, are basic elements of a person’s life. For people who have at least some knowledge, but don’t use their own brain on how they perceive things, only to express themselves word for word from the ideas and opinions of other’s, have a lot to learn in life.

    Don’t be afraid to speak from your heart and express your own opinions on certain issues. Yes, some may disagree with you, but don’t let peer pressure get the better of you. Be true to who you are. You will feel better about yourself and have stronger self confidence.

  • #1090882

    000646
    Participant

    Yoshi,

    Well said!

    Thanks you for the advice and encouragement.

  • #1090883

    anon for this
    Participant

    yoshi,

    I very much agree with the last paragraph in your post. It is so true!

    The Einstein quote is one of my favorites. Minor nitpick: I think the quote is actually “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

  • #1090884

    yoshi
    Member

    anon for this – Thanks for the correction, I’ve had Albert Einstein’s quotes (and life story) ingrained in me for years, but my memory comes and goes at times. 🙂

  • #1090885

    Bogen
    Participant

    Scientists Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

    * Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: “[The world’s climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.” (November 2004)[5] “There’s been warming, no question. I’ve never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn’t hold up…” (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] “The temperature hasn’t gone up. … But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming.” (August 2006)[7] “Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.” (Feb. 5, 2007)

    * Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”

    * Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”

    __________

    Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

    Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

    * Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

    * Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”

    [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

    * Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”

    * David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

    * Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035”

    * William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” “I am of the opinion that [global warming]
    * William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: “There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.”

    * George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”

    * David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”

    * Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

    * Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.

    * Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction”.

    * Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3’s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

    * Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.”[38][39]
    * Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”

    * Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”

    * Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”

    __________

    Believe cause of global warming is unknown

    Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

    * Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”

    * Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature]
    * John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”

    * Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: “carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming…how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain”

    * William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”

    * Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”

    “[T]
    * Jennifer Marohasy, weed biologist, director of the Environment Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs: “It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels…whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.”

    __________

    Believe global warming will benefit human society

    Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

    * Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: “the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers … this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes.”

    * Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: “[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. … [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.”

    * Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree … a modest warming is a likely benefit.”

  • #1090886

    Bogen
    Participant

    Scientists opposing the theory of man-made global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Balling, Lindzen, and Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Soon and Baliunas), ocean currents (e.g., Gray), increased solar activity (e.g., Shaviv and Veizer), cosmic rays (e.g., Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Leroux).

    Some studies show that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun’s output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 5,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years. Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that “solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”

    Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation.

    [100] The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing.

  • #1090887

    Joseph
    Member

    Thank you Bogen.

    And than you Feif Un for putting it well (with the last post):

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/evolution-total-rubbish-because#post-11307

  • #1090888

    000646
    Participant

    Feif un & Joseph,

    i will repeat again there are plenty of books by r aryeh kaplan and schroeder and other rabbonim who explain how and why the things that you think contradict the torah actualy dont if you have a logical reason to beleive that they are mistaken please post it.

  • #1090889

    Joseph
    Member

    646: I’ll take the Gedolim of Eretz Yisroel and America, who are quite clear and adamant that it is kefira. (They said so when assuring one particular author’s books on it.)

  • #1090890

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    you can go by wichever rabbonim you like

    however you cannot say all rabbonim say that this is kfira as that simply isnt true, and you also cannot blame peopole who follow the ideas of rabbonim who have actuall physical proof back them up.

  • #1090891

    feivel
    Participant

    two, well accepted by the scientific community, principles of science

    1.the more absurd a theory is, the better the quality and quantity of the proof must be. that’s quite logical.

    2. science is a continuum, from the measurement and manipulation of recurring reproducible events on one side, to “deep theory” on the other end. the first end is basically “technology” while deep theory includes such matters as the origin of the universe, the geologic history of the earth, and of course the origin and history of life on earth, ie evolutionary theory

    now, i mention number two because this is the reason most people, who havent analytically and carefully thought about evolution themselves, accept it with a deep faith. if scientists can create computers and guide spaceships through space, then if they tell me evolution is a fact, of course i believe them. however, these two groups of scientists, AND THEIR METHODOLOGY are on opposite sides of the spectrum. evolution is primarily supported by interpolation, extrapolation, and mainly speculation, with some actual measurements, (dna, fossils, etc, but accompanied by a great deal of speculation as well)

    now, back to number one:

    can anyone here imagine a more absurd proposition than the following:

    a bunch of gases (primarily oxygen, CO2 and nitrogen, a little methane maybe) and water with a trace amount of metals, mix in some photons from the sun and some lightning to fix the nitrogen. a bunch of dead randomly moving particles,

    a mixture of gases and water, basically, pulled themselves to become you and me, living feeling beings, who can think (do you have any idea what the wonder of thinking and feeling is?) who can look at mountains and feel a stirring of awe, who can cry, who can look at marks on paper and learn from it. with such complexity and cunning that science is only beginning to understand the workings of a simple single cell.

    with no guidance, no designer, no creator, no intelligent input at all to control this metamorphosis.

    imagine taking a truck full of these gases, mix in some sand, whatever you want, shake it around for a few million years. what do you think will emerge, give it a few billion years,add a couple million such trucks if you want. really, what do you think will emerge?

    i dont claim a proof of anything here

    just something to think about

  • #1090892

    Joseph
    Member

    646, Yet I can say it is Kefira, just as adamantly as the Gedolim have said so.

  • #1090893

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    I said you cant say that all RABBONIM say that this is kfira as that simply isnt true.

    Feivel,

    evrey thing you were saying was only about the origin of the first form of life forming out of inatimate matter.

    i am not talking about that the origin of life

    i am talking about the evolution of life from the first form of life and onwards

  • #1090894

    Joseph
    Member

    646, I said I can call this kefira as adamantly as the Gedolim have done so.

    646, How do you reject the “scientifically proven” origin of life, yet accept the “scientifically proven” evolution of life?

  • #1090895

    feivel
    Participant

    no, i clearly spoke about from gases to man

    the developement and history of the species from gases to man

    i couldnt be much clearer

    if you want to limit this ridiculous theory to just what you find easier to explain, go ahead. but certainly all evolutionists hold that all life we have today was originally inorganic matter which somehow organized itself into all the species. they only prefer to talk about the second half, but the first half is obviously implied and NECESSARY (except for francis crick who conveniently solves the problem by proposing, life came to earth from other planets.)

    the nutshell of what evolution proposes is as i stated.

  • #1090896

    feivel
    Participant

    646

    you are very smart and very well educated, i dont intend to argue further, i dont have the time right now and there isnt much point. i wanted to put my idea up, hoping it might inspire someone to think about evolution critically.

    if not you, maybe someone else

    it is very frustrating to go in circles, as im sure you will agree, and i have better things to do

    have fun

  • #1090897

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    the origin of life is NOT scentificly proven and NO ONE claims that it is.

    The evolution of exsisting species on the other hand IS scientificly proven.

  • #1090898

    feivel
    Participant

    at least he’s honest:

    “When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities:

    Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.”

    -George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967)-

  • #1090899

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    the origin of life is NOT scientificly proven and NO ONE says that it is

    the evolution of exsisting species on the other hand IS scientificly proven

  • #1090900

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    i meant to write an exsisting life form

  • #1090901

    Chuck Schwab
    Member

    000646, anonforthis, & any other proponents of evolution:

    Evolution claims man decended from monkey. How do you purport to believe in evolution but not this tenet of evolutionary belief? And I assume you don’t believe in the monkey junk, as that is a clear and outright contradiction of the Torah itself.

  • #1090902

    Chuck Schwab:

    Very simple. I believe that Man came from monkeys!

    YW Moderator:

    Please put up my thread where I ask why posters dislike me so much.

  • #1090903

    zevi8
    Member

    Maybe evolution exists but not exactly how scientists think it does. Do we really know how hashem created animals and man? Animals and humans share alot of the same dna. Animals were created before humans. Maybe humans are an improved version of monkeys? Maybe hashem took dna from monkeys and improved on it, looking seemingly like evolution, and using it to create man. None of us were there so its impossible to know exactly what happened.

  • #1090904

    Joseph
    Member

    gmab, Like Feif Un pointed out the other day “The Torah says that Hashem created man on the same day he created monkeys. It also says he formed him from Earth. Evolution contradicts that.”

  • #1090905

    zevi8:

    Or maybe Man and Monkey share an elter-zeide?

  • #1090906

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    stop repeating what feif un said there are plenty of rabbonim who explain why the things you think are a contradiction to the torah arnt.

    i asked before if you have any logical reason to beleive that these rabbonim were mistaken and all you could answer was that the rabbonim (or “gedolim” or whatever you wish to call them) that you go by hold that it is kfira.

    That is not a logical reason. if anything it makes more sense to go like the rabbonim who have the metzius backing up what they are saying.

    please stop saying that these things contradict the torah as this is not necessarly true and just makes you look arrogant, close minded and uneducated

  • #1090907

    Joseph
    Member

    000:

    Answer Feif Un’s very good point.

    IF you have an answer, that is.

    (P.S. Which “Rabbonim” support evolution? And I don’t mean which run-of-the-mill “Rabbi.”

    P.P.S. The GEDOLIM of Eretz Yisroel and America that openly and very clearly declare evolution kefira gomer, and in contradiction to the Torah, are not c’v “close minded and uneducated”.)

  • #1090908

    anon for this
    Participant

    Chuck Schwab,

    I think you are confusing me with someone else. I never said anything in this thread about evolution, only global warming.

  • #1090909

    If man had an obligation to take care of the earth there would be mention of it in the torah.

    How do I know?

    Because there is an obligation to take care of one’s own body. Are you going to say that taking care of earth is a more basic obligation that hashem didn’t even need to spell it out? OH, you’re not? OK. So go away and let me do my avadas hashem.

  • #1090910

    torahls1:

    We’re supposed to rule over the Earth, right? – “V’ha’aretz nasan l’vnei adam.”

    Aren’t rulers supposed to care for their domain and charges?

  • #1090911

    Chuck Schwab
    Member

    000646 and Give Me a Break:

    Kindly explain how you believe man came from monkey if the Torah says befeirish that Hashem made man from earth? (And that Hashem made man the same day as Hashem made monkey. So how did man “evolve” from monkey.)

    Or do you simply disregard the inconvenient, clearly wrong aspects of evolution, and claim to “only” believe the parts of the evolutionists theory that aren’t an out and out contradiction with the Torah.

  • #1090912

    tal
    Member

    I cannot believe that on a Jewish site people are arguing if their was complete evolution or global warming!?!

    Feivel- I love that George Wald quote. In one of my evolutionary classes now, I am writing a report with that as my thesis. A jewish professor repeated it to me my freshman year.

    The more you learn about evolution the stupider it becomes. Come on, did you ever study about the evolution of the mitochondria, eukaryotes, horozontal gene transfer? Do you really believe that thousands of species have the ability to photosynthesize because of viral horozontal gene transfer? Oh, is that why every plant does exactly the same thing! Even they admit photosynthesis was too complicated and too similar in everything to evolve more than once. Don’t you just love the way they supliment the theory instead of throwing it out?

    We are Jews. We believe in God. What is the argument?!? We say in tefilah, “haloh ozen halo yishmah? im yotzer ayin haloh yabeit? Hamilamed adam daat? Hashem yodeah machshivot adam ki hemah hevel. Ashrei hagever asher tosrenu kah, oomitoratecha tolmidenu! lihashkit lo memei rah…” (Is there not an ear, don’t you listen? Is there is an eye formed, do you not look? Does a man learn knowledge? God knows the thoughts of man because they are empty. Fortunate is the man who depends on God and from His torah they learn to stay away from the fountains of evil…!!!) Go learn something about Torah and evolution and then you’ll know the truth, not just an argument.

  • #1090913

    000646
    Participant

    joseph (and chuck shwab),

    Again there are books by r gedaliah nadel and rabbi aryeh kaplan among others, rabbi shimon scwab stated that it does not necessarly contradict the torah, and there are many other rabbonim you may call them run of the mill rabbis if you wish (i do however wonder how you are so sure that the rabonnim who hold that this is kfira are bigger then any other rabbi i may mention have you fahherd those rabbis and the rabbis whom you arrogantly call run of the mill “rabbis” who hold like this?)

    the fact that rabbonim say somthing in science does not make it true ncesseraly and also does NOT diminish there stature in torah or in any way if they make a mistake

    the chinuch (Mitzva 545) clearly states that no animal ever goes extinct

    the mahral clearly states that the sun goes around the earth (nsivos olam nisiv 14) r yonasan eybshitz clearly held the same thing (Yaaros dvash 1:4) (i can bring more examples however i am afraid they wont let this post up if i do!)

    you may beleive that the rabbonim that you generaly hold by are bigger then the peopole who’s names i brought down however it is worth it to remember,

    first of all that this is just your opinion (you dont KNOW that the rabbonim who hold it is kfira are bigger then the rabboim who hold it isnt.)

    and second of all that the rabbonim who’s names i have mentioned (and the ones who hold like them who’s names i didnt mention) do have the metzius backing them up.

  • #1090914

    000646
    Participant

    Tal,

    with all do respect I think your logic is a bit flawed, there are tons proofs to the theory and not understanding somthing in its entirety in no way disproves the whole thing as long as it dosnt contradict any vital part of the theory

    (such as a mammal skull being found in rocks that were supposed have formed before mammals devoleped, a human skeloton found that shows humans interacting with dinosuars that were supposed to have been extinct millions of years before humans evovled or somthing that would be impossible to have evovled not just extremley unlikley)

    as there is lots of evidence supporting this theory that has not been refuted and there is no reasonable chance that it will be anymore then there is a resonable chance that the world will be discoverd to be flat.

  • #1090915

    Joseph
    Member

    000:

    So please explain to all of us Torah-literalists (with the meforshim) how many came from monkey. Our Torah knows of man coming from EARTH. And being CREATED on the same day as animal (i.e. monkey.)

    Please find one of your books from those folks explaining that away and help us Torah simpletons understand how our zeida (c’v) came from monkey (like your ideolog gmab agrees.)

  • #1090916

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    our zadies have made plenty of mistakes in science before (see my above post) read the books by the rabbonim i mentioned and read books on both sides of the argument (even r’ slifkins book maybe?

    if you only read and listen to peopole who agree with your outlook you will of course find it hard to beleive how peopole may disagree with you)

    it is beyond the scope of this post to explain evreything.

    get back to me with a logical reason why you hold as you do and

    at least untill then please stop insulting and talking down to evreybody who disagrees with you.

    Thank you.

  • #1090917

    Joseph
    Member

    And the mabul never happened. Afterall, your holy scientist in their great unerring wisdom, have found no “scientific evidence” of a flood. And have thusly declared, righteously in their wisdom of course, that no flood happened.

    But of course you say “it is beyond the scope of this post to explain everything.” So don’t bother telling us your “zadies have made plenty of mistakes in science before.”

    Who is your zeida anyways? Travion the Macaca fascicularis monkey?

  • #1090918

    Joseph:

    First of all, monkeys were “created” before people, even you agree.

    Secondly, “day” is CERTAINLY not literal. It may even refer to the different geobiological eras (i.e., Precambrian, Silurian, etc.)

  • #1090919

    tal
    Member

    I mean this in complete respect, you are a Jew and older than I am. (I’m only 22.)

    Lets start at the beginning of your post,

    If our zadies could make a mistake because there was not enough evidence back then, then evolution which was proposed before them could have been wrong because there was not enough evidence found to oppose it.

    Again, I mean this respectfully as you are an adult.

    Rationalization and Logic are two independant though processes.

  • #1090920

    Joseph
    Member

    GMAB: It also says man was created from EARTH. How do you justify claiming origin from monkey?

  • #1090921

    Joseph:

    It also says that all creatures arose from the earth. I say that “Earth” refers to that inorganic mixture of minerals which formed the protobiotic organisms, and ultimately, cells. The rest is a 3.5 thousand million year history.

    Did you ever think about the fact that the animals that “were formed from water” were “created” before those that were “formed from earth?” This is in agreement with evolutionary science, which maintains that all life started in the watery depths, and that tetrapods (four-limbed creatures – amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) came from advanced piscines.

  • #1090922

    yashrus20
    Member

    There happens to be a interesting pshat on how enosh who did avoydah zorah changed himself into a monkey. The world was created with an ois hey which is the name of hashem but if you dont believe in hashem you change that hay into a kuf anf the way to say monkey in hebrew is koif. That is the real pshat in monkeys and the evloving. I’ll try to find you the marah makom later.

  • #1090923

    yashrus20
    Member

    There happens to be a interesting pshat on how enosh who did avoydah zorah changed himself into a monkey. The world was created with an ois hey which is the name of hashem but if you dont believe in hashem you change that hay into a kuf anf the way to say monkey in hebrew is koif. That is the real pshat in monkeys and the evloving. I’ll try to find you the marah makom later.

  • #1090924

    Joseph
    Member

    The world has never seen such freezing heat

    By Christopher Booker

    The Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

    A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

    This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

    So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

    The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

    A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

    If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

    Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

    Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

    Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world’s governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

  • #1090925

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    I gave clear examples were the maharal r yonasan eybshits and the chinuch made mistakes in science (they assumed these things were true from psukim) and names of prommient rabbonim who held it isnt a stira to the torah

    you on the other hand havnt said a single logical or rational reason or any reason for that matter (other then according to you and the rabbonim you follow it isnt true) why you hold like the rabbonim who hold it isnt true.

    Stop trying to ridicule somthing you know nothing about it just makes you look silly.

    Tal,

    As you pointed out (i also pointed this out a couple of posts ago) if somthing CONTRADICTED the theory you would be right

    however if you have a theory that is proven from virtualy evrey branch of the natural sciences and NOTHING is found to contradict it AND there are plenty of positive proofs to it also from many sources that are independent of eachother

    and then you find one part of it that would be unusual to happen it is only reasonable to assume that the unusual thing happend and not that the theory isnt true.

    if you find somthing that really completley contradicts the theory i will be happy for you as you will go down in history as the scientist who disproved darwin and you will probally win a nobel prize

  • #1090926

    000646
    Participant

    my last post is talking about evolution

  • #1090927

    How did we get from global warming to evolution?

  • #1090928

    Joseph
    Member

    GMAB: Through “evolution.” (Just like your and 646’s zeida.)

  • #1090929

    Joseph:

    Elter-zeide. And yours too. What’s the matter, “Australopithecus afarensis” (“Southern ape from Afar”) sounds too good to be YOUR ancestor?

  • #1090930

    Joseph
    Member

    GMAB:

    Avrohom Avinu, Yitzchok Avinu, Yaakov Avinu are my elter-zeidas. Not c’v some monkey that you hold for yours.

    THAT sounds too good to be YOUR ancestors. But they still are. So there is yet hope for you to come to your good senses.

  • #1090933

    tal
    Member

    Firstly,

    You just pointed out contradictions to the theory.

    1. Dating of skulls to the wrong evolutionary periods. How does that follow the theory?

    Secondly,

    I wanted to end with this:

    Have a good night.

  • #1090934

    000646
    Participant

    tal,

    with all do respect i think you misunderstood my post,

    the things that i mentioned would that would contradict the theory (the mamaml skeletons being found were they shouldnt be ect.) NEVER have happend or been found.

    what i was saying was that if somthing has many proofs to it from many independent sources (as evolution does)

    some parts of it being unlikeley to happen in no way disproves the proofs that you still have:

    when somthing has alot of proofs to it it makes more sense to say that the unusual thing happend, and not that all the proofs you had from other places just coincedently made it look like evolution happend even though it didnt.

    I am sorry if any of my posts are coming across harsh and or argumentitive i am enjoying this disscusion with you very much and in no way mean to be dissrepectfull.

  • #1090936

    tal
    Member

    But, there is inappropriate dating.

    The evidence I know of:

    Also, things spontaneously appeared millions of years ago but not anymore. What happened? Chemical composition has been pretty steady. The same elements that existed then exist now. Why did this random event of life only happen once. This is one of my main frictions with the entire idea. If it could have happened once, it become more probable. But, it didn’t. Only one thing became alive and that evolved. There is too much beauty and complexity in it. It’s just too simple.

    You also never answered me when I asked you if you believed you are responsible to a higher being beyond yourself? I think that it would speak worlds. Respectfully, I think you’ve been avoiding answering it.

    Too long as is. Have a good night. Nice to talk to you. I hope your day went alright. Thank you for understanding that I disagree and I’m not criticizing.

  • #1090937

    000646
    Participant

    Tal,

    let me start off saying i am a frum jew who beleives in hashem and davens 3 time a day.

    i am not talking about the forming of the first life form either,

    i am talking about common ancestry and the evolution of exsisting life

    it is worth noting if the mutation is one that benifits the organisim it will genarly build up at surprising rates in the population if there is somthing forcing it to be rapid namely natural selection (the animals that dont have this trait either end up being dead earlier or reproducing less). there is a famous experiment were Richard Dawkins made a computer shoot out random letters and programed it to save evrey letter that brought the jumble closer to the sentence “methinks it is like a weasel” it took a mere 40 “generations” to get there.

    a lack of fossils in NO WAY disproves the theory for besides the fact that fossilisation could be a very rare event as there are plenty of proofs to it without the fossil evidence the only way the fossil record could be a problem to evolution would be if somthing was found that CONTRADICTDED it.

    i will now repeat the point i made earlier,

    being that evolution is proven from many independent sources it just dosnt make sense that evreything just coincedently looks like evolution happend even though it didnt

    I say all this with the utmost respect as you are entitled to your opinion as much as i am to mine.

    it is nice talking to you to

    good night

  • #1090938

    Joseph
    Member

    This is a good write-up I found. Unfortunately I couldn’t determine who the author is:

    Regarding the Refuos in Gemora, the rule is “nishtanu hativim” – refuos change, and in the days of the Gemora they worked. We do not rely on the Refuos in the Gemora today.

    Scientists are constantly changing their mind about things and one would be hard pressed to use current scientific knowledge as a question on Chazal. (A while ago, they would have said that the Zohar, which states the world is round, is a strange statement, since the scientists know that the world is flat!).

    On the other hand, there are inexplicable statements in Torah that have proven centuries later to be scientifically correct, such as the statement in Niddah that there are no fish with scales that do not have fins, or the Rambam’s incredible calculation of the exact time of the lunar month down to the fraction of a second, which took NASA about 700 more years of technology to figure out the exact same number, to the thousandth of a second, using their technology.

    The most recent example of this is the Chazon Ish ZTL, who lived in our times, and had no secular education at all, yet showed much knowledge of math and astronomy, much of which can be seen in his teshuva on the international dateline.

    Should a human not have a Neshama or a Nefesh, he is not a human, but an organic construct; should someone create an organic machine that mimics plant life in every biological way possible, it may still be considered a Domem, if it lacks the spiritual Nefesh HaTzomeches.

    The Pachad Yistchok proposed to prohibit the killing of lice based on then new scientific knowledge that they are not spontaneously generated. Most achronim disagreed with him, either because (a) when the Gemora makes such statements it does not mean to link the halachah to the scientific fact but rather to “clothe” the halachah in a scientific fact, but the reasoning behind the halachah is based on spiritual reasons rather than science, or (b) the scientists constantly change their mind about things and their current position on anything is no proof that they will not change their mind.

    Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that, even according to the scientists, who say today that the hare only appears to be chewing its cud, and even if it is true, it is not a contradiction to the Torah. The reason they do not chew their cud is because the hares we have today are not the same hares we had in those days (the time of the giving of the Torah). Rabbi Hirsch was not claiming to independently confirm or deny what the scientists said in his days – he never claimed to be a scientist.

    He is not saying that the hares of 5,000 years ago changed into today’s hares. He’s saying that the animal identified in the Torah is currently extinct, and what we call a hare is not that animal.

    This is a rare but altogether acceptable occurrence. It has happened. When the Torah refers to certain animals, it does not give identifying features to classify the animal. We rely on Torah shebal peh to do so, when necessary. Otherwise, translations such as these can become confused.

    For instance, there is a machlokes as to what a “nesher” is – Tosfos in Chulin 63 a says it is not an eagle. (there are those who say it is a vulture).

    There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosfos regarding what “orzo” is — rice or millet? (The question is, which one do we make a mezonos on?)

    So if Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch says that an arneves is no longer with us, or that it is not lepus or oryctolagus – hare or rabbit – then fine. Not anything shocking.

    I would have said that when the Torah talks about chewing cud, it can very possibly include something that appears to be doing so such that you would need scientists to tell you technically it does not. The Torah was given to people, not scientists only, and if Hashem wanted to tell us about a hare, He definitely could describe it that way.

    It does not say anywhere in Torah shbal peh that the arneves is what we today call a “hare.” These things sometimes get confused, as I pointed out above. Today, in Israel, they call a tiger “NOMER” (as in “Tony HANOMER” on the box of Frosted Flakes), but we know that NOMER is a leopard. I would not be surprised if in many years from now, there will be some innocent Talmidei Chachamim that mistakenly confuse nomer for a tiger because of the colloquial usage. In fact, regarding the arneves itself there is clearly an error in “common knowledge”. See Professor Yehuda Felix’s “Chai v’Tzomeach B’Torah” p. 23, where he insists that the arneves in the Torah – the species that chews its cud – is NOT the domestic house rabbit that people think it is. It is only the wild species. He says this mistake happened because in ancient times they brought to Eretz Yisroel house rabbits from outside the land and grew them IN Eretz Yisroel (you can tell the difference because of their smaller body and legs). He adds that mistakenly people commonly refer to the domestic rabbit as “shafan”, but clearly, he says, that is a totally different animal (i.e. the hyrax).

    Point to a cougar and ask an average person what that is. “Leopard” he will likely say.

    The earth revolving around the sun is only relative. Nobody has proven nor even claims that it is absolute. In other words, if the Earth is the center of the universe, and the entire universe revolves around the earth, it will appear from the vantage point of anyone located within the universe that the sun is revolving around the earth, when in reality it is the opposite.

    In other words, if you throw a ball in the direction of north at 60 MPH, you are stationary but the ball is moving.

    However, if at the time you threw the ball you were on a bus traveling south at a speed of 60 MPH, you were actually moving, but the ball was stationary.

    But someone outside the bus would see the ball stay in the same place, and you move.

    However, if that outside observer were standing on earth, which was (for the sake of the argument) rotating North at 60 MPH, then even though to him it would seem like the ball was stationary and you were moving, the truth would be that the ball is moving, you are stationary, and he is moving.

    Movement relative to another object depends on your perspective. And in order to know, ultimately, whether the earth revolves around the sun, because the earth is moving, or the sun revolves around the earth because the universe is moving and earth is stationary, you would have to measure form a vantage point outside of the universe, and nobody has been able to do that yet. At least not scientists.

    So the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is like saying that the ball is moving inside the bus. Maybe. Or maybe everything is moving in your immediate area except the ball. You’d have to be outside the bus to know that.

    Same thing here. To know whether it is the earth or the sun that is moving, you would have to take into consideration the entire universe’s movement, which no scientists has been able to do.

    The scientists themselves do not claim to be able to determine what goes around what, except from the vantage point of being inside the universe. The Torah is talking absolute.

    So the scientists, and everyone else in this universe, are “on the bus”. From their vantage point, it does indeed seem like the earth moves and the sun is stationary. But they are not, nor do they claim to be, able to determine whether the entire universe is moving around the earth. People merely tend to assume that is not so, because of all the quadrillions of planets and stars in the universe, why would everything be revolving around this particular planet earth?

    Except for the fact that Chazal tell us that the entire world was created for the sake of Klall Yisroel and the Torah, and that the sun in fact revolves around the earth, as does the entire universe, of which the earth is the exact center.

    And no scientist in the world is going to tell you that he can disprove that.

    From our perspective, we who are “on the bus”, it looks like the “ball is moving”.

    But from the ultimate perspective, the complete perspective, stepping so far back that the entire universe is in view, the earth is smack in the center.

    The idea that stopping the sun is not literal will not help, because the Gemora says explicitly that the sun travels around the earth.

    The scientists today do not even claim to know that the earth revolves around the sun except in a relative way as I mentioned before. The Torah is speaking in absolute terms.

    The “four corners of the earth” is not taken by anyone literally nor was it ever. It was, and still is, an expression. Kind of like when the Torah says Hashem took us out of Egypt “with an outstretched arm.”

  • #1090939

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    First of all i hate to be the one to break this to you but there ARE fish that have scales and not fins google it.

    you still have not explained what the chinuch (545) meant when he said that no species of animal ever goes extinct.

    the gemara in bechoros (7 on the bottom of the amud) states that bats lay eggs.

    the gemara also says that a snake has a gestation period of 7 years.

    the gemara in chullin talks about a mouse that is half made out of dirt

    on the earth going around the sun,

    it is gravity that makes the earth move it is the sun with its larger gravatational pull that makes the earth move as it does it is therefore from a physical point of view only meaningfull to say that the earth moves around the sun

    (of course you can say it means that the whole universe “revovles” around torah wich is on earth the same way you would say a self centerd persons life only “revovles” around themselvs but that does not change the fact that in a physical scientific way the earth moves around the sun and not the other way around)

    also it was already known in the days of the greek empire the yivonim that the earth was round and before that peopole ust didnt know if it was round they didnt have proofs either way

  • #1090941

    Joseph
    Member

    646,

    It is obvious and clear from what you just wrote, that you haven’t even read the post immediately preceding your last which answers some of your queries.

    What I will add is that anyone who voices doubt as to the complete truthfulness and correctness of the Gemora’s SCIENTIFIC statements, has bought themselves a free ticket to gehenim.

  • #1090942

    zevi8
    Member

    Joseph,

    Before you go condemning people to gehenim, why dont you do some research. The scientific knowledge of the gemara is on par with the knowledge of the science of that era. The gemara states that the sun revolves around the earth. That has been proven wrong. The gemara states that the gestation period of snakes is 7 years. That has been proven wrong. Many opinions in the gemara found the earth to be flat as well. The gemara should not be relied on for scientific knowledge. That would just be foolish. Science has come a long way and we should always be learning new things. The gemara has also been proven wrong in human as well as animal anatomy. I am not knocking the gemara but it was written over 1000 years ago. Our knowledge of science has increased and we should not keep ourselves stuck on knowledge from that period.

  • #1090943

    Joseph
    Member

    zevi, I see you too have spewed forth prior to even reading the first post on this page. Aside from that, just about everything you just stated is is fiction.

  • #1090945

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    i read your post and explained to you why it was full of fallacies:

    it was known since the times of the yivonim that the earth was round and before that no one had any proofs either way there was never a time when it was considerd scientificly proven that the world was flat

    rashi in bechoros clearly says that it is talking about a bat (there are no birds that nurse there babys either and the gemara says that the “Atlef” mentioned does this.)

    the sun cannot be said to be moving around the earth in any physical sense because it (the sun) is what is making the earth orbit as it does (see my post before this were i explain this in more detail)

    there ARE fish that have scales and not fins. and there are the other examples i gave (there are many other ones that i didnt write also!) of chazal’s scientific statements not being true in a physical scientific sense.

  • #1090946

    Joseph, if you want people to read your posts word for word, try shortening them. In response to your main point, please read the paragraph of the article below which begins “Beyond that…”

    The following is excerpted from an article by Avraham Bronstein. It summarizes a lecture he attended which was given by R’ Nathan Kamenetsky shortly after the tsunami hit in ’05. You can find the full version here:

    http://www.thebronsteins.com/archives/000393.html

    The focal point of the shiur was R. Yaakov Kaminetsky’s first visit to Israel (Today, incidentally, was his 19th yahrzeit). It was 1956, R. Yaakov was 65 years old, and had lost his wife two years before that. A little depressed, in love with Israel, he seriously considered making aliyah, retiring, and living out his life as a private citizen. As it happened, an OB/GYN friend of his, a Dr. Dov Shapiro, who was friends with R. Yaakov going back to Slabodka (who had to appeal to the Rugatchover to let his parents let him become a doctor), convinced him that he should continue his career in America. The rest, as they say, is history, but what would have happened if R. Yaakov had not taken his advice and, in fact, made aliyah?

    R. Nathan suggested that Chareidi society would have been different in that MOAG (which was not even read by those Gedolim that banned it — they don’t read English!!) would never have been banned. R. Yaakov, along with the Lithuanian Gedolim, believed that the truth should never be hidden. Rather than try to portray themselves and their teachers as flawless, they took pride in their humanity. Saying someone is human is not lashon hara, nor is it speaking negatively about that person. In a similar sense, R. Nosson Slifkin’s books would not have been banned either. As quoted in MOAG p.680, the Lithuanian Gedolim believed that flawed faith is preferable to hurt people.

    Beyond that, RNK said his father would have taken issue with the entire idea of denying the validity of modern science when it seems to contradict Torah as interpreted by Chazal. He recalled how R. Yaakov watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon (in the house of a neighbor who owned a TV) and conclude that, clearly, the first few chapters of the mishna torah that discuss the moon being a living spiritual being must have been based on Greek philosphy that had been conclusively disproven. In contrast, an English Jew once tried to convince R. Nathan’s son that the moon landing was staged, and his proof was that the flag did not droop. He was unaware that the flag had a wire built into it to make sure that the Stars and Stripes would be visible. That latter attitude is the same one that denies carbon dating, fossils, astrophysics, etc, and it hurts the honor of Torah more than it helps. Clearly, if modern science demonstrates that the world is older than 6,000 years, then the world being literally 6,000 years old can simply not be an Principle of Faith. In short, MOAG enhances our appreciation of the Gedolim by presenting them as real human beings, and Nosson Slifkin demostrates true kavod haTorah by not avoiding and denying reality and the issues it presents. Those that claim the opposite are “kol ha-posel bi-mumo posel”. By presenting superhuman, perfect Gedolim and denying the realities of modern science, they are doing more harm than good. As RNK put it, “This is why a man should never consult a gynecologist.”

    …R. Nathan concluded by pointing out that, since the world was created based on the blueprint of Torah, it would follow that understanding the world can only help us understand Torah just as the pesuqim in Job and Psalms enhanced our comprehension of Genesis. As he asserted in the Q&A section, if science is true, and torah is true, they obviously cannot contradict. We should be happy that modern science has shown us that “yom echad” has meanings beyond a simple 24 hour day. Again, the theme was living in the real world, and not denying reality. The goal, as always, is to use reality in framing a religious worldview.

  • #1090947

    anon for this
    Participant

    jewishfeminist02,

    What does MOAG stand for?

  • #1090948

    Joseph
    Member

    anon: The book Making of a Godol.

  • #1090949

    000646
    Participant

    ANON,

    I THINK MAKING OF A GADOL (book by RNK)

  • #1090950

    Joseph
    Member

    Finally, 646 agrees with me!

  • #1090951

    000646
    Participant

    Hey what do you know! 🙂

  • #1090952

    anon for this
    Participant

    Thanks for the prompt replies. I had not been aware of that book.

  • #1090953

    Joseph
    Member

    646, I knew you’d eventually see the light! I always had confidence… 🙂

  • #1090954

    tal
    Member

    000,

    If you are an observant Jew, then why are we having this discussion?

    Obviously there is some level of evolution. But, evolution does not exist to the degree of speciation that the world has fallen for. In a grad course of mine, we subtyped a virus, allowed it to replicate for generations (not that long!), and then genotyped the community. We had tons of quasispecies. Mah rabu maasecha Hashem?!? It was one of the most amazing things I have even seen. Then my professor said it was proof that there was evolution. But, we did not see a new, novel virus just multiple forms of the old. They all essentially had the same functions. They just had a different total genome. Complete speciation is lunacy. But, you apparently agree.

    Nice to have spoken with you again. I know I take a while to respond because I only come on the web once a night to check my school stuff.

    Also, I never heard of Dawkins before. His experiment was interesting and funny. Thanks for sharing.

  • #1090955

    000646
    Participant

    I would say stranger things have happend but that would probably be a lie! 🙂

  • #1090956

    000646
    Participant

    Tal,

    i dont beleve that complete evolution would mean hashem is less invovled in the world c’v we know exactly how rainstorms form but i still beleive hashem is intimitly involved with them forming, he just gave us the ability to see how he does it! i dont see why evolution should be any diffrent.

    most of the scientific things disscussed in the gemara is not to be taken litteraly in a scientific sense

    as to what you were saying about macro as opposed to micro evolution,

    those small diffrences you saw in the virusus if they kept on happening millions and millions of times with the most changed ones having more “babies” then the other ones who dont have this change it would result in a completly diffrent spiecies then the original : enough micro changes will end up equaling a macro change (imagine those small virusus you saw but magnify the diffrence by 100,000 now times it by 500,000 times keep doing by the time you would reach “even” a few million it would be so radicly diffrent that it would not be able to even be said to resemble the original virus )

    Good night!

    Talk to ya later.

  • #1090957

    bigmo
    Participant

    To all who say that the gemara has been proven “wrong”, i must stand up for kavod haTorah and protest. whether you understand it or not, every word in the Gemara is the absolute truth.

    And about the topic of global warming in general, i personally don’t know enough to form a coherent opinion, but from the little i do know, it is happening, but not on such a large, doomsday scale that Al Gore is preaching.

    The funny thing is, my Economics teacher claims there is scientific proof that an ICE AGE(!) is approaching. might be, but funny how everyone says global warming and he says punkt farkert.

    Also, there is a statistic going around that Gore produces, due to flying around the world to preach going green , as much pollution as the whole city of Portland, Oregon!!

  • #1090958

    Joseph:

    Why is believing that iAustralopithecus afarensis/i gave rise to iHomo sapiens sapiens/i antithetical to the Torah?

  • #1090959

    tal
    Member

    I do believe rainstorms are a direct and indirect result of His interactions in the world. First, He created nature leading to indirect control. Secondly, He can change nature leading to direct control. He created the world, and, in tefilah, we say He renews creation everyday.

    Have a good night.

    Again, nice to talk to you. I think we are both in agreement that Darwin went a little off the deep end and I’m not expressing it properly! Good night.

  • #1090960

    squeak
    Participant

    Sorry, but Gore is educated. His is indeed a fool, but he is educated.

    He belongs to the ranks of other Educated Fools, such as

    GW Bush, Joe Biden, etc

  • #1090961

    <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> is a very diverse population. Ther are Caucasians, Africans, Orientals, etc. Do you <i>really</i> think that Adam and Chava had all those variations to their genes?

  • #1090962

    000646
    Participant

    Tal,

    I dont see why the fact that there are laws of nature that seem to cause things that that makes hashem any less directly invovled

    as i beleive he is the source of evreything and is constantly renewing and keeping those laws the way they are.

    the sages of the gemara have also stated that bats lay eggs, that a snakes gestation period is seven years and that fleas are spontaneusly generated (the fact that they just didnt consider there eggs to be eggs or that that based on the spiritual definition of nefesh theres isnt a life force like joseph said in an earlier post dosnt change the fact that from a scientific point of view the statement isnt true)

    about that virus thing,

    My point was just that any satistical change that happens within a population (wich is what happens by natural selection) no matter how small if it keeps increasing enough millions of times it WILL change the species to another one, picture for arguments sake a flying fish lets say the ones that can jump and glide for longer live and reproduce for longer then evreyone else and the babies of there’s that can jump the furthest (even the weaker ones of theres probably can jump longer then the offspring of the ones who cant jump as far just like the parents ) live and reproduce for longer, repeat this process enough millions of times and you will have a creature that flies way more then it swims an can in no way be called a flying fish!

    Anyway nice speaking to you again

    Good night!

  • #1090963

    AL GORE CAUSE MORE POLUTION WITH HIS PRIVATE PLAN THAN THE WHOLE STATE OF OREGON

  • #1090964

    Will Hill
    Member

    QUESTION TO 000646 (or anyone else accepting the premise of evolution):

    Evolution insists man came from monkey.

    The Torah insists man came from earth.

    Do you, or do you not, believe man came from monkey?

    If you do not, how do you cherry pick and choose what provisions of Darwinism you believe and what you do not believe? You maintain NO credibility as such.

    If you do, you are in the wrong religion. This is antithetical to the Torah.

    Defend your position, whatever you reply. (Not there is someone or some book that agrees.)

  • #1090965

    000646
    Participant

    Will Hill,

    its really quite simple,

    i dont beleive that the torah is a science book:

    We dont know what it meant by a “day” and we dont know what it meant by “dirt” we dont know what it meant when it talks about “water” before the creation, we dont know what it means when it says hashem place a “firminent” on top of the earth among many other things

    i dont think the account in bereishes is coming to tell us ANYTHING about science other then hashem made it

    if you want mar hamekomos to hold like this read the books i mention in my earlier posts.

  • #1090966

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    I once heard this from Reb Yerucham Gorelik, ZTL, who was known for his biting sarcasm. On the topic of a monkey being able to throw water on a person’s hands and being a valid netilas yadayim, Rav Gorelik said, “Hakof, hagam shehu hayah hasabah shelanu, aval mikol makom, hu lo yachol lhotzee otanu bmitzvot.”

  • #1090967

    tal
    Member

    Just talking statistically, spontaneous generation of species and it leading to people is just too far off. People can be identified by genetic fingerprinting because there is a statistical improbability of anyone else in the universe having exactly the same fingerprints. The improbablility of spontaneous generation is even higher, however, most people rely on that theory. There is a big discrepancy. We have to follow probability all the time or never and evolution certainly is not probable. So, the scientific world is clearly contradicting themselves.

    Have a good day. As, I said before, respectfully, I think we are pretty much on the same page and neither of us is expressing ideas too well. We are both saying Hashem created the world and gave them the tools to make slight changes over time. But, He also controls the changes through the environment, killing those He has selected… Hope shabbos went well.

  • #1090968

    000646
    Participant

    Tal,

    Hi how are you,

    Of course as jews we beleive that hashem is directly in controll of evreything and all processes in nature,

    when i say complete evolution i just mean that from a scientific point of view all speicies share a common ancestor (wich as you pointed out is satistcally speaking impossable to have spontaneusly generated)

    i obviosly dont mean unguided by hashem so i dont see why even complete evolution would mean that the torah is false c’v as evolution is just another natural process like the ones that make rainstorms, and the same way knowing how rainstorms form is not a stira to beleiving that hashem makes them so to evolution should not be a stira to believing in hashem making life

    I think we may be agreeing like you said.

    Anyway have a great day its nice speaking to you again.

  • #1090969

    Joseph
    Member

    Here is another good write-up I found:

    First, even if semi-humanoid life forms existed, it does not prove in the slightest that they were our ancestors. Perhaps they existed, as ape-like mamals, with more similarity to humans that the apes with which we are familiar. Fine. But what says they are our ancestors? Nothing at all.

    Second, there is no evidence at all that those fossils are indeed of ape-humans. They dont even have proof that those creatures even existed. Any shred of a fossil that they find that gives them an opportunity to speculate about what kind of creature the fossil came from, they latch on to and built mountains out of molehills, and produce theories about what the creature was. This happens constantly:

    Zinjanthropus Man, a humanoid race touted as being 600,000 years old based on “fossil evidence”, was not even based on one body, or even an entire skull. They found one skull with the lower jaw missing. The skull was not found in one peice – it consisted of 400 fragments, found distributed among tons of debris, and put together at the discretion of the people who stand to gain the most by such a “discovery”. The entire episode was totally biased, and they still have zero evidence that this creature was anything but human, with, at most a perhaps slightly deformed skull.

    And how do they know how old this creature was? Because of the fossils that they found in the same strata with his fossils. ANd how do ythey know how old those animals were? Because of the theory of evolution which says that such animals should be that old. There is no evidence of anythign here – just theory and wishful thinking.

    Every such “discovery” has had opposing scienists who declare them to be nothing. Java and Peking Man were declared by the prominent evolutionist Weidenrech to be plain humans, nothing more and nothing less.

    E.E. Stanford, (“Man and the Living World”) declared that Nenderthal Man lives with us today. IN “The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution”. W.E. LeGros Clark declares that Neanderthal Man existed at the same time with regular human beings.

    All these types of ape-humans are nothing but apes or humans that can be seen among us today. At hte London meeitng of the Congress of Zoology it was revealed that the nuseum exhibits of Neanderthal Man walking hunched over like an ape was a regular human who had arthritis. Only 13 samples of Neanderthal Man have ever been found – ever! – every one of them incomplete, yet the evolutionists built on them an entire mythical “race” of ape-men.

    Procunsul Africanus, touted as the ancestor of “both apes and humans” was declared at that same convention to be nothign but a plain ape.

    Java Man was represented by a skull cap, a left femur, a small peice of a jaw, and 3 teeth. Nothign more. And they were found not together but about 50 feet apart, over the span of a year, among many many other bones and devris. Based on this “evidence” they created an entire era in history. Laterthey found more skulls, more bones etc. Everythgin was the same as human remains except forthe teeth, and evolutionists claim that those teeth are the teeth of a plain monkey.

    Peking Man has nothing that cannot be found in normal men. Cro-Magnon Man was, evolutionists admit “fully developed” and intelligent as any man today. He was about 6 feet tall, with a regular forehead, full chin and large brain. he is no more proof of evolution than we are.

    But do the math: Even according to the most stubborn and irraitonal evolutionists, for every single fossil of normal humans and apes that they find, they should be finding billions upon billions of in-between fossils. The steps between ape and human included tons of in-between creatures, and mutant cxreatures who were not fit for survival. Yet no such fossils have been found. Even the little that they desperately squirm to concoct is pitifully useless compared to what should exist out there. Yet fossils of regular men and apes exist in abundance – in a bundance! – and only once in a blue moon do they even clima to find an in-between fossil. And incidently, the fossils of normal men are found in the same strata as those of the “ancient” and prehistoric men. Go figure.

    The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution. Not that proof is needed – the entire idea is a baseless hteory, the only reason they cling to it is because they have nothign better to cling to, if they dont want to admit the obvious – that the world was created by G-d.

    I would suggest, if you want this information in detail, to read Rabbi Avigdor Miller’s SIng You Righteous and Awake My Glory.

    *****

    “But the “age” of fossils is established by carbon-dating which measures the amount of radiation present in the isotope?”:

    Carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. (a)that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and (b) its rate of decay has always been constant.

    Neither of those assumptions has been proven or clsoe to proven. And sicne the world was created in six days, who knows how the cosmic radiation in the atmoshphere was fluctuating then.

    There is another issue that makes the carbon dating useless. WHen th e world was create, it already had an age. In other words, when Adam for instance was created, he was an adult, even though he was one day old; there were fully grown trees; the sun’s light already reached the earth; an entire world existed, full-blown and OLD. How old was the world at the moment it was created? I dont know — it doesnt say. But we do know that it didnt sdtart fomr scratch. And so lets say someone would chop down a tree 1 week after it was created and find maybe 50 rigns insude – would that prove that the tree wa 50 years old? Nope – it owuld only prove that when it was created it was created as an adult, 50 year old tree.

    So even if dating would be accurate, it still doesnt prove that the world was not created 6,000 years ago – because when it was created, it already could have been thousands of years old.

    *****

    “But isn’t it true that no human fossils have been found at the same level/time period/whatever that dinosaur skeletons were found? and forgive my “jurassic park” imagery, but even if they were extinct AFTER the flood, doesn’t it sound highly unlikely that people would be able to peacefully live in settlements before then at the same dinosaurs were roaming around? without being constantly on the run, I mean?”:

    No, it’s not true. Actually, there have been human fossils found on the same level as dinosaur fossils, and even deeper; the fossil evidence itself doesn ot support the evolutionary theory in the slightest. On the contrary, Freud predicted that it would, and a century of digging has shattered his hopes. Teh evolutionists have yet to explain why the the fossil evidence does NOT supprot their theory.

    Dinosours didnt run around attacking people like in the movies. In fact, many of them were vegetarians.

    *****

    If G-d “could have” created the world either way then the dating mechanisms dont prove what they claim to, because they do nto negate the possibility that G-d created an aged world.

    But never mind that. The entire idea that G-d would have created a “new” world is not reasonable, because surely things like Adam, the animals. the trees, were created ADULTS and full grown, with all the characteristics of people and animals much older than 6 days. Insects that live in decayed dead trees had their homes to live in. The world surely was created more than 6 days old. Adam as an adult by deifnition had the signs of being older than 6 days. The adult animlas too. And trees with fruits on them full grown right at creation. A world swarming with life is a world that is clearly more than a few days old, and the teeming life forms are clearlyshowing siugns of being more than a few seconds old.

    So clearly the world was much older than its creaion-date. The only quesiton is how old.

    The “dating” of the scientists is therefore not test of Emunah at all – except a test of Emunah in what the scientists say.

    Emunah Peshutah for sure.

  • #1090972

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    Joseph, your argument that the Rambam’s advanced knowledge of the lunar interval indicates that the science of chazal was accurate has a big problem. The Rambam himself says that he got his cheshbon from the Greeks (Kiddush Hachodesh. 17,24). Furthermore the Rambam says there that any fact which is proven by science, even by non-Jews, carries as much halachic weight as the divrei neviim.

    Your argument the the eggs of kinim are not considered alive is also problematic, as what are they, plants? Also the Rambam and nosei keilim in Hilchos Shabbos don’t say that they reproduce but just are not halachically alive, rather the term used is einan parin vravin. The same is used regarding a mouse that arises from dirt. (BTW how is that not a problem vis a vis mayseh breishis, if animals can pop out of dirt anytime?)

    Furthermore, in Pesachim 94b the Jewish sages said, “By day the sun passes beneath the firmament and at night above it.” The sages of the nations maintained, “By day beneath the firmament and at night beneath the ground.” Rebbe said, “Their opinion seems more correct than ours.” (Translation from Rabbi Slifkin’s sources page.) Chazal themselves admitted that they were wrong on science and the non-Jewish scientists were right. (Do you believe that the sun goes above the sky at night?)

    The Rambam says that there are these spheres in which all the heavenly bodies are embedded, and there is no space in between. This simply doesn’t fit with what we know today. However, the greatness of the Rambam was that he understood that we continue to grow in science, and accept its proofs from wherever they come.

    Your citation that Chazal knew the world was round is also not a proof, because Tosfos in Avodah Zara says that the way Chazal knew it was round was that Alexander Mokdon the Greek went very high up above the Earth (I have no clue how) and saw it was a ball (Avodah Zara 41a). Chazal got this from the non-Jews.

    Now I am not saying evolution is a proven fact, as it makes untestable claims that would require millions of years to verify, the same as I am not convinced of global warming, man-made or otherwise. I say to be open-minded.

    But one thing I will say is that your claim that all the science of Chazal is true and that one who believes otherwise is going to gehennom is very hard to accept. When did this end? Clearly the Rambam’s science was incorrect (check also his calculations of the relative sizes of the earth and moon and sun in Yesodei Hatorah 3,8. Rambam says Earth is 40 times bigger than Moon. We know the Earth’s diameter is 8,000 miles, while moon’s is 2,000 miles. Doesn’t seem to work either in diameter or volume. Sun’s diameter is 800,000 miles, while Rambam says sun is 170 times bigger than earth, which also doesn’t quite work in diameter, and in volume would be far off. So by the time of the Rambam this was no longer true.

    Yet if you claim that it is true, and somehow the Rishonim and Acharonim down until today did know everything about science, then this is a verifiable claim. Let us simply give a test to any talmidei chachamim of your choice on known and testable facts in science. We can construct circuits and test on the voltages currents and transfer functions like college and grad students take. We can construct tests in biology on gene cloning and reading of electrophoresis gels and Western blotting, 3-D protein structure, etc.

    We can test in organic synthesis in chemistry or in quantitative analysis. We can also give the tests in English to Israeli Talmidei Chachamim who should know English since that is also a chochma. (Chazal knew 70 languages.) While you will probably claim this is demeaning, yet we are allowed to test neviiim. It would be a nes goluy, and a tremendous kiddush hashem that nobody in the whole world could possibly deny. It would demonstrate the greatness of those who study Torah.

    Sadly, while this would be great if achievable, we are all only mortals. Chochma is infinite, but human capacity is not. Even the greatest scientists only know their one small area of expertise, but little of other scientific subjects.

    Emes and anivus requires that we respect the knowledge of others, and not claim that we miraculously know it all. At any rate, this is easlily testable, as above.

  • #1090973

    Joseph
    Member

    If there is anyone here who really believes they are a decendant of monkey, please speak up.

  • #1090974

    000646
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Again you post a write up that is full of fallacies,

    there IS a treasure trove of transitional fossils of humans and other species.

    There had NEVER been any evidence found of humans interacting with even the smallest plant eating dinosaures (and there were plenty of them that would be more harmless then modern farm animals so they would have interacted with them just like they did with evrey other animal that lived around them)

    and just from these layers (of gnerations of animals living and dying) it is apparent that the world is much much older then 6000 years old,

    how would it be neccessary to (and were is the proof that hashem did create) the fossils of hundreds of thousands of species that never exsisted just to make the world fully grown?

    there are many other ways that are used to date things besides carbon dating such as varves, ice layers, stars thousands of light years away (things such as supernovas that we are just able to see today that couldnt be seen 5000 years ago because there light has just reached us from more then 6000 light years away) among many others

    and common ancestry is proven from way more then just the fossil evidence

  • #1090975

    Joseph:

    “If there is anyone here who really believes they are a decendant of monkey, please speak up.”

    I do. If you look at Homo sapiens sapiens today, you will see plenty of variety – Caucasians, Africans, Pygmies, Orientals, etc. And we, as a species, are only about 100,000 years old. Do you really think Adam and Eve possessed the chromosomal varieties necessary to bear these multicolored fruit? Obviously not. If so, then in 6 million years Australopithecus afarensis can becom Homo sapiens sapiens.

  • #1090976

    sammygol
    Member

    Ignorance is bliss, especially if cloaked in misplaced frumkeit. What would happen to all this supposed Emunah Peshutah if G-d Himself would say – dodo, I have you all the evidence to see My great work, and you managed to constrict it to a box that you yourself know is way to small to contain it.

  • #1090977

    Anonymous

    Enough! Everyone is sick of this thread going in circles.

  • #1090978

    coffee addict
    Participant

    wow, a no name poster

    anyways I saw this on noaa’s website

    NOAA: Below-normal Atlantic Hurricane Season is likely

    this year

    however climate changers say that hurricanes will be stronger due to climate change

  • #1090979

    coffee addict
    Participant

    and is joseph a stomach doc?

  • #1090980

    Sam2
    Participant

    ca: People really need to learn about sample sizes.

  • #1090981

    akuperma
    Participant

    To “Charles R. Darwin” who believes “If you look at Homo sapiens sapiens today, you will see plenty of variety – Caucasians, Africans, Pygmies, Orientals, etc. And we, as a species, are only about 100,000 years old. Do you really think Adam and Eve possessed the chromosomal varieties necessary to bear these multicolored fruit? ” — ACTUALLY there is minimal variety among humans. Based on DNA, human variety is similar to the variety among poodles – some black, some white, some big some small — one tribe in Africa is a bit different, analagous to Portugese Water Dogs. The lack of variety is compatible with the Jewish tradition that all humans are closely related with recent common ancestry (unlike seculars who tend to think that “race” is something really significant and meaningful). Apparently major changes occur very rapidly as noted in adaptations to local climate factors (e.g. among people’s in high areas which only became inhabited in historical times) – suggesting that “evolution” is not based on random mutation but is steered, and does NOT lead to brand new species.

  • #1090982

    OURtorah
    Member

    Joseph- you are missing a few words here. Macro evolution and micro evolution. Macro is what the goyim call the big bang theory, humans descending from monkeys, one species becoming another and how the world has no intervention from any God. We as frum Jews know this is incorrect. We know HaShem created the world, we know Adam, the first man was created from dust and tzelem elokim and we know that HaShem continues to affect the world around us. We also know HaShem has different time bounds than us. With regards to fossils that have been proven to be “millions of years old”, maybe that’s so, but not in human years. That is our Torah. That is our emunah. We know the way goyim see the creation of the world is wrong. And that is where you are right.

    Micro evolution on the other hand is the small mutations that occur in your body that make you different from the next person. It’s the reason cancer occurs. It’s the reason you have different types of people. It’s simply DNA mutations that create differences which could be small in the moment but could make a larger difference after a number of years. Yea HaShem is obviously orchestrating those mutations as well, but you can’t deny that they are happening.

    So yea evolution seems like a scary word, and I know you are a person completely opposed to secular culture. And I respect that. But as someone who’s taken a university course (cuz it was a requirement) in biology and evolution, and came out frum and with a striker sense of emunah and appreciation for real Torah, I hope I’ve clarified that for you.

  • #1090983

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Micro evolution on the other hand is the small mutations that occur in your body that make you different from the next person. It’s the reason cancer occurs. It’s the reason you have different types of people.

    if that was true than certain types of people a genetically disposed to cancer while most others are not, you also have to realize, you agree to humans being on this earth for 5775 years, you also agree to the first 2500 years being cancer free (at least), therefore your small mutations had to occur during the last 3000 years, yet virtually everyone could get cancer?

  • #1090984

    OURtorah
    Member

    Coffee addict- I don’t agree to that. Mutations happen in everyone and anyone. In fact mutations are occurring right now but in most healthy people, their bodies will kill off anything new, not in line with the rest of the body. It’s a huge miracle more people don’t get cancer. I don’t know what happened 2000 years ago regarding illnesses, or mutations in general (a mutation doesn’t need to be a bad thing).

    I’m confused at your argument

  • #1090985

    feivel
    Participant

    I don’t want to get in this in a substantive way, but just to address your parenthetical point. Yes mutation in somatic (body in general) cells probably happen with frequent regularity. But as far as my (somewhat dated) knowledge goes there has never been established a case of a beneficial mutation. And in germ (reproductive) cells there has been documented only one case of a beneficial mutation. And even that had a strong negative aspect. And the positive aspect only applied in a very limited climactic region.

  • #1090986

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Coffee addict- I don’t agree to that. Mutations happen in everyone and anyone.

    which part are you addressing

    In fact mutations are occurring right now but in most healthy people, their bodies will kill off anything new, not in line with the rest of the body

    so this statement

    It’s the reason you have different types of people.

    is a good mutation or a bad mutation and if it’s good why didn’t everyone get it and if it’s bad that means some people we’re weaker thats why they turned black (or yellow)?

    i’m just as confused at yours

    i never really understood science

  • #1090987

    ¡RebYidd23!
    Participant

    When a mutation is beneficial it goes unnoticed.

  • #1090988

    OURtorah
    Member

    not true- we noticed when people were able to sart eating dairy because of a mutation in the lactose enzyme…

Viewing 166 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.