The Hoax known as man-made “Global Warming”

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

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 173 total)
  • Author
  • #1090865


    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…


    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?


    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!!!



    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




    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.



    “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.


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




    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.



    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.




    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).




    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.




    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!




    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.



    “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.




    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.




    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.



    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.




    Well said!

    Thanks you for the advice and encouragement.


    anon for this


    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.”



    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. 🙂



    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.”

    * 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.”



    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.



    Thank you Bogen.

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



    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.



    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.)




    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.



    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



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




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


    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



    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?



    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.




    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




    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.



    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)-




    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




    i meant to write an exsisting life form


    Chuck Schwab

    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.


    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.



    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.



    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.”



    Or maybe Man and Monkey share an elter-zeide?




    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




    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”.)


    anon for this

    Chuck Schwab,

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


    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.



    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?


    Chuck Schwab

    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.



    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.



    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.




    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.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 173 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.