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.)
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.
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?
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.)
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,
The way science works is that established facts, found evidence, are a proof or a non-proof. So, it either supports or doesn’t support the theory. Because of the fact that there are different forms of life, many lines of evidence can be viewed as a support of the theory hence evolution. However, when obvious really, really important big things contradict the theory and are so improbable, it’s time to throw it out. There is too much evidence against the theory. As I said before, the evolution of photosynthesis did it for me. It’s honestly laughable. It’s not the time to say we just don’t understand fully.
But, how can you propose a hypothesis you just don’t understand? How can a theory, scientific fact, be both supported and not supported. Is it a fact or not? What is a fact? In science, when all evidence supports it, it’s true. But, apparent contradictions means it cannot be true. You need all the evidence to support something in science, not half, not three quarter, not six sevenths. The discrepency is too large. Results must be reproducible over and over again and evolutionary evidence has not been every time.
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.
Also, everything in science is refuted. But, I don’t understand your point in the last paragraph.
Again, I mean this respectfully as you are an adult.
After three years of undergrad of this and a few semesters of it in for my MS in genetics that I get after this semester, we could go on forever. I’m not saying I’m any type of expert. I don’t mean to be disrespectful nor distasteful. Just to say the more you sit through it, the more you need to rationalize it to believe it. You can’t just look at evolution and say its obvious. But, you can look at the world and its apparent complexity and state creation is obvious and beautiful. My absolute favorite is the lac gene and attenuation in the trp genes. The first two intro genetic classes learn. I loved it. I walked out of my first classes, which is why I entered the major, saying "mah rabu maasecha hashem" (how incredble are your deeds Hashem).
Rationalization and Logic are two independant though processes.
GMAB: It also says man was created from EARTH. How do you justify claiming origin from monkey?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
my last post is talking about evolution
How did we get from global warming to evolution?
GMAB: Through "evolution." (Just like your and 646's zeida.)
Joseph:
Elter-zeide. And yours too. What's the matter, "Australopithecus afarensis" ("Southern ape from Afar") sounds too good to be YOUR ancestor?
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.
Firstly,
You just pointed out contradictions to the theory.
1. Dating of skulls to the wrong evolutionary periods. How does that follow the theory?
2. Dating of mammal skeletons to the wrong periods. That doesn’t follow the theory either.
You said yourself it was ‘unlikely.’ So, it is improbable. In science, that means there is a contradiction.
Secondly,
I’m not looking to win a nobel prize for anything. I don’t want to spend my life fighting to disprove this to this world. I hate fighting. Let them realize their mistakes on their own. I don’t want to preach Torah. That’s not what a Jew does.
It ultimately comes down to this: do you believe you control things or that you are responsible to a higher being and your life does matter that it’s precious to Him because He lovingly formed you? You believe the former. I believe the latter. As you can see, most people here believe it too.
I’m not looking to preach to you. Just to show you that there is contradictory evidence and there are many instances that the theory is improbable.
Obviously you are somewhat educated on the subject. In that you think you understand enough to believe it are argue your point. I feel I beleive enough to say its not true. But, you also need to understand the theory isn’t concrete. It isn’t 100% supported 100% of the time. You told me that in a different post. At that point, you need to begin, as the saying goes, take everything with a grain of salt.
I wanted to end with this:
I’m not trying to argue with you. It sounds as though you think I am from the tone of your last post. I’m trying to respectfully disagree with you. As I said, I’m a young adult. You are an adult. I respect you because you are closer to my ancestors than I, in my opinion. I don’t think your one step closer to an ‘ape-like’ hominid population.
Have a good night.
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.
You are right, I read over your post. I read it wrong initially. I think you said mammals in the dinosaur period, they haven’t found.
But, there is inappropriate dating.
The evidence I know of:
They found more ‘complex’ organisms when only ‘simple’ should have evolved at that point. Pardon the words ‘complex and simple.’ My guess is you are more like my professors in the usage of those terms. Just spend some time on it.
All the perfect mutations of antennas to legs were all there just waiting to be expressed. Then, a HOX gene mutation develops and a perfectly formed useful appendage appears. That is just too convenient. (Obviously, that is completely oversimplified. But, that’s the point.)
There have been fossils dated to the wrong periods. Spend some time looking up some of the examples. I. It’s the fault of the sediment. II. The environment in that period. III. Improper fossilization… They come up with multiple reasons to discount the fossil that doesn’t support the theory. I do grant you that sometimes they refigure the periods.
When the likelihood of some parts of the theory forming the foundation continuously decreases because of mounting evidence, then, I can’t believe it. In science, as time passes, certainty should increase.
It only makes sense to say something unusual happens a few times. At some point, it gets old. When they test a medication, there can be only very few outliers to introduce the medication to the public. There is more certainty, effort, reproducibilty, and time in the introduction of a medication than in a theory that the ‘entire’ natural science world believes. Maybe medicine deals with less uncertainty. (I completely separate the two.)
I can’t make you see how the theory is disproved. You need to disprove something to yourself. People cannot be made to have a view. They develop one themselves.
Again, have a good day. I know I don’t word things too well. I’ve learnt that from my students. I hope this time I was a bit more clear.
The thing is, to keep probability of a mutation in the species, there would have to a similar mutant to mate with usually. Too many differences results in inviability. So, you need a general population of drift and that typically takes place over generations. Unless there is something forcing it, it is gradual. So, when you find a fossil in the wrong period and not all the gradual ancestors, then something is wrong. It could not spontaneously appear. It’s not a perfect theory. Also, finding one fossil from a population and not multiple also prevents the theory. (I understand that there are ways that fact could support evolution. Let me explain why it doesn’t.) How was it reproduced to that point? Who were its parents? It would have to have been really close to this new form.
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.
Do you at least recognize that evolution is not certain and that it doesn’t solve all the origins of the species?
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.
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
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.
---
Some scientific facts were known through rabbinic tradition. The Rashba cites a rabbinic tradition from Sinai that a treifah cannot live more than 12 months. (Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (Kreisi Upleisi 40) writes that such traditions are not to be disregarded even if found to be against “all the laws of heaven and earth”, since they are part of Torah shebal peh.)
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.
To question a scientific fact that is derived from the Torah is to question the author’s understanding of the Torah, which, in the case of Chazal, cannot be done. The only question is, did Chazal derive all of the scientific facts they used from the Torah, and what do we do when we see a scientific fact in Chazal that contradicts current scientific knowledge?
The Rama in Toras HaOlah quotes the Rambam who says that in the days of Neviim and Chazal, the science of astronomy was “incomplete”. The Rama strongly argues, stating clearly that we assume rabbinic science to be infallible, and ancient rabbinic knowledge of astronomy complete.
The Maharal (B’er Hagola 6) writes that when the sages mentioned a scientific fact, they derived it from their knowledge of the Torah and Hashem, Who is the Cause of all science. He says that science is inferior to Torah even where it comes to scientific knowledge, because scientists base their opinions on what they see, which is a finite and imperfect method of investigation, as opposed to knowledge of science through Torah, which is the root and cause for all facts in the world.
The fact that science in Chazal was gathered from “higher sources” was used by Rav Yehuda Breil ZTL, Rebbi of the author of encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok, to refute his student’s suggestion that we reconsider Chazal’s leniency of killing lice on Shabbos because lice are spontaneously generated. The Pachad Yitzchok (topic: “zaide”) suggested to his Rebbi that now that science has refuted the possibility of spontaneous generation, we should not be lenient in allowing the killing of lice on Shabbos.
But Rav Breil did not accept the suggestion. Stating an idea similar to that of the Maharal, that Chazal’s knowledge is based on the reality, not mere scientific observation, it is certain that the rabbinic science is more accurate than the science of the scientists, and even if currently it appears one way, the rabbinic view will eventually be proven correct. He mentions that in the disagreement between the sages and the scientists regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, the sages conceded to the scientists, but centuries later, it was proven that the Torah sages were right all along (Note: See Shitah Mekubetzes that the sages never conceded that the gentiles were right; they merely “lost the argument”. They knew from tradition that they were right; they just could not defend the correct position).
There are others (Rav Dessler, if memory serves) who write that when the sages explain a Halachah based on a scientific fact (such as the heter to kill lice on Shabbos), they do not mean to say that the Halachah depends on this fact. Rather, the Halachah is based on deeper, hidden reasons, and they merely “clothed” their reasoning in the scientific fact. They did not even mean to commit themselves to the truth of that fact per se. So if the fact is proven wrong, the Halachah stays the same.
(I am fully aware of the statements in the Sefer Me’or Anayim of Rabbi Azariah min Ha’adumim where he states that secular scientific fact would outweigh the science of Chazal. Please note that the sefer Meor Aynayim is considered highly unreliable (see Sdei Chemed vol. 9 p.179), declared prohibited to read by many Gedolim (and even worthy of being burned); at the very least, not everything he says is considered true or authoritative. It is his statement that the Maharal (quoted above) came to refute.)
---
When Chazal discuss life, or what constitutes animal, mineral, or vegetable, they are using the Torah’s definitions, not the scientists’. And the Torah’s definitions of all of the above depend not on physical characteristics but spiritual ones. An inanimate object has a Nefesh Hadomem – the “spirit” (which is a better translation than “soul”) of an inanimate object; plant life has a Nefesh HaTzomeches; animal life, a Nefesh HaBehamis, and a human being, a Neshomah.
The definition of life that is used throughout Torah is spiritual, not physical. The Halachic cut-off date for an embryo being considered not yet life regarding certain Halachos is 39 days. On day 40, that changes. Biologically, there is no way to identify the exact date of “life”. This is a spiritual, Neshama-based, assessment, because the definition of life depends on spiritual, Nefesh-based criteria, not scientific ones.
If I were to create an android – a robot made out of human tissue – that is “programmed” to have human characteristics – to cry when hurt; to laugh when told a joke; to smile and display all chemical and physical signs of happiness when confronted by a desirable event (i.e., events that are programmed to be “desirable”) to eat and drink and burn the food as fuel; to portray in every scientifically way possible human characteristics – such a Golem, no matter what biological signs or functions it displayed, would not be a human being because it has no Neshamah; it would not even be considered “alive”. Perhaps a clone is in that category, a non-living humanoid constructed through biological matter and those biological factors that enable human functionality, copied from a real human being the way one copies a computer program, but without the spiritual components of a live creature, the Nefesh and Neshama. I don’t know whether, when you clone something, the spiritual components get cloned as well, but if they don’t, then I imagine a human clone would be considered not a human being but rather an organic robot, a humanoid, with no “life” of its own. Even if the scientists cannot tell the difference.
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.
So when Chazal say that lice do not reproduce but rather spring from sweat and dirt, they mean that lice do not impart into their eggs the same life-force that animals do, that their eggs have a Nefesh HaDomem, or partially a Nefesh HaDomem, and Halachicly their status is not that of eggs. The fact that scientists will tell you lice eggs are the same, biologically, as any other eggs, means nothing here. They see a Mommy louse, a Tatty louse, and a baby louse, but that’s just the way this construct was programmed to function. Plants also “reproduce” – the pollination process involves moving a seed (the pollen) to another "organ" (the stigma) which causes reproduction - so we have a Daddy plant, a Mommy plant, and a baby plant -- but plants aren’t animals. And plant “eggs” aren’t eggs. And Chazal had a tradition that neither are lice eggs, Halachicly, because the way lice are reproduced -- with a Mommy louse and a Daddy louse -- does not involve the result in the creation of an egg that enables an animal Nefesh the way other eggs do.
The Gemora, no matter what explanation you are going to have of it, says that dirt can produce lice. The scientists point out that it is an egg that produces lice. That’s not a big deal, because I am saying that those eggs are halachicly not eggs, but dirt. Because the difference between an “egg” and a biologically identical domem is something only Chazal could know, based on their knowledge of the Nefesh.
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.
But whatever - that’s a discussion in the Achronim. But it says nowhere that Torah she bal peh depends on the scientific statements that chazal based halachos on. As I said, that is a discussion in the achronim. Your question is not directed against torah she bal peh - for nowhere does it contradict you - but rather the interpretations of achronim.
If you prefer the Pachad Yitzchok's approach, I would disagree with you and tell you it's not necessary, but it wouldn’t make you any more of an opponent of Torah she bal peh than he was --- and he was one of the great Sefardish sages of recent history.
---
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?)
There is even a Rabbi in Eretz Yisroel - Rabbi Yitzchok Abadi - who holds l'halachah that shiboles sh'ul is not "oats", and that the real "shiboles shul is some kind of grain that we don’t have nowadays. He holds that oats are not mezonos but hadamah; that you cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzoh with them; that they are not chometz.
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.
That’s how these things happen.
I don’t know where this idea came from. The subtle insertion of false assumptions into an if-then pattern of logic is a typical tactic of the "misinformation professionals" who try to "prove" falsehood. They arrange their falsehoods in such a way as to sound as if some transitive formula is being stated when in reality it’s just a bunch of hogwash. The listener gets so caught up in the "if A then B so if B then C" pattern that they are distracted from the falsehood of the entire sequence.
---
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.
It wouldn’t seem that way to you, though, because you’re on the bus throwing the ball.
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."
Jews always knew the world was round even when the scientists said it was flat. The Zohar speaks about "kadur haatrez" - the ball of the earth. Of course, if "secularists" were there, they would have said the Torah doesn’t mean "globe of the earth" literally, or something messed up like that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jewishfeminist02,
What does MOAG stand for?
anon: The book Making of a Godol.
ANON,
I THINK MAKING OF A GADOL (book by RNK)
Finally, 646 agrees with me!
Hey what do you know! :-)
Thanks for the prompt replies. I had not been aware of that book.
646, I knew you'd eventually see the light! I always had confidence... :-)
000,
If you are an observant Jew, then why are we having this discussion?
If you believe in Hashem, you don’t believe in complete speciation. Why am I trying to show you the theory isn’t perfect when you agree with me anyway? Of course you know the Gemara is true. I thought we were having this discussion because you didn’t.
Forty life cycles is a short time for a mammal or a human because of their reproductive speeds. But, for bacteria or viruses it’s an eternity. But, that is typically how long it takes for genetic drift in mammals and people. Yet, mammals to people took such a short period while different species of prokaryotes (bacteria and archea) took such a long time. Logically, it should have been the opposite.
I wasn’t talking about the apparent lack of fossils. I was talking about the ones they have unearthed that don’t make sense. We spent days and days discounting fossils in some classes because they didn’t support the theory.
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.
This is why I try to differentiate between micro and macroevolution. Microevolution (as in new populations of a species or drift) happens to some degree. Macroevolution (descent with modification) just didn’t result in you or me. I believe that I have a purpose beyond just allowing the human race to continue like serving Hashem. After I die, the non-jews will say that I fulfilled my purpose because I replicated. I will say I have if in din, Hashem tells me I have. I don’t think that humans were an ‘evolutionary screw-up’ as one of my professors says. Then why should I care about anything at that point? Why live?
Since you agree with me, there is no point in discussing the falsity of Darwin’s descent with modification. You learn Gemara and the Gemara says Hashem created a diverse world.
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.
Have a good night. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll post back later.
I would say stranger things have happend but that would probably be a lie! :-)
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.
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!!
Joseph:
Why is believing that iAustralopithecus afarensis/i gave rise to iHomo sapiens sapiens/i antithetical to the Torah?
Complete evolution means that people were not created; rather, they evolved from lower forms of life. Then, automatically, if Hashem did not create people, He is less involved. It’s just a fact by default. If he did not create diversity, then formation is spontaneous and not directed by Him again by default.
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.
Obviously, I believe that in the recent centuries He has allowed us to gain insight into His miraculous world even to the point of influencing it. But, that only enhances His involvement with us. I don’t think Hashem allowed us to see the way genes control phenotypes to discount Torah. He was rather allowing us to appreciate the complex world He has created in an ever more confusing world. He was giving us more of an opportunity to participate with Him in formation and understand what humans have tried to for centuries. Unfortunately and fortunately it worked in both directions as everything does.
Until you can tell me what the rabbanim who wrote the gemara intended, I’ll take them at their word. Who am I to say what the tanaim intended when they wrote sifrei hakodesh. Are we that intelligent that we understand their intentions and we can pick and choose which ones we believe? We would not be able to understand the Torah without Rashi telling us how. We cannot just say we understand Gemara until someone equivalent comes along and tells us how. We just don’t have anyone willing to do that.
Let me explain the viral replication I was referring to using HCV as an example. It’s one of the fastest replicating viruses. If you would genotype the virus in someone who is on first presentation and then in forty years, you would find the same major sub-type the person was originally diagnosed with. You wouldn’t find any new virus nor a shift in sub-type. Rather, you would find multiple quasispecies of the same sub-type. I was referring to something like that. Evolution was just taken to far which is what I am trying to point out.
Don’t you believe that Darwin took this theory just a bit too far?
Have a good night.
(And Al Gore doesn’t know anything. He is an uneducated fool.)
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.
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
<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?
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!
AL GORE CAUSE MORE POLUTION WITH HIS PRIVATE PLAN THAN THE WHOLE STATE OF OREGON
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.)
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.
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."
Your opening statements are all I’ve been trying to say the entire time. Hashem set the law of nature as in rainstorms controlling the world indirectly. He can alter laws and renews creation directly. He is in control period. He was, He is, He will be.
There is some level of evolution, I’ve seen it in multiple viruses, just Darwin went way off the deep end. Because, ultimately, Hashem created diversity resulting in evolution and He allows it to continue. Hashem did create a level of evolution. Just not Darwinian. Hashem directly and indirectly controls the morphology of everything. I said in HCV there are minor genotypic shifts. I’ve genotyped things and saw upfront that there are changes. I know they are there, I’m not denying that. I’m denying that total evolution resulted in us. I’m not denying Darwin’s observations rather his conclusions based on his observations. That is a very important distinction. If we are the direct result of evolution rather than a diverse creation, then Torah is false and Israel is not ours. As the saying goes, we can’t have our cake and eat it too.
Hashem created two genotypes and now there are billions. Since Hashem displays Himself through nature and did not ‘knead’ another person from earth or form one from a rib again, anyone can fill in the blank.
I can’t say anything about the Gemara because I am a girl and don’t learn it.
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.
I didn’t have time to post this before Shabbot.
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.
Also, Gore is an uneducated fool. He’s never studied in detail anything he’s claimed. All he does is make money off of foolish notions and win nobel prizes. GW Bush is someone who at least has something because he has been kind to the Jews. Don’t mock people we must have hakarat hatov to. He at least beleives in doing the right thing. He may be a little mixed up on what emet is because he does not believe in torah.
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.
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.
You must log in to post.
RSS