web analytics
December 6, 2016 / 6 Kislev, 5777
Blogs
Sponsored Post
The Migdal Ohr Mishpachton MISHPACHTONIM – Israel’s Children are Your Children.

Support Migdal Ohr by purchasing letters in the Torah Scroll that will be written in honor of Rabbi Grossman’s 70th Birthday.



Ten Questions on Evolution and Judaism

A Jewish view on Evolution.

Printer-Ready Page Layout
Man and Monkey at Jerusalem's Biblical Zoo.

Man and Monkey at Jerusalem's Biblical Zoo.
Photo Credit: Kobi Gideon / FLASH90



“Heresy!” An uproar erupted in parts of Israel yesterday when the Education Ministry announced that evolution will be taught to seventh through ninth grade pupils across the state education system, including in national-religious schools. Evolution is feared by many as being heretical. But is this really the case?

Here are ten questions about evolution and Judaism, along with brief answers. This does not substitute for the detailed discussion that this topic requires; it is merely intended as an introduction.

1) Evolution is alleged to have taken place over millions of years. But doesn’t the Torah teach that the universe was created just a few thousand years ago?

There is a strong (albeit not universal) tradition in Judaism that “the account of creation is not all to be taken literally,” to quote Maimonides. Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1921), a member of Agudath Israel’s Council of Torah Sages, suggested that the Six Days of Creation were lengthy eras rather than 24-hour periods. Maimonides himself, as the commentaries on the Guide to the Perplexed reveal, was of the view that the Six Days represent a conceptual rather than historical account of creation.

2) Why should schools accommodate evolution? Isn’t it just a theory, not a fact?

“Evolution” is a confusing term, because it covers two very different concepts. One is common ancestry, the concept that all animal life arose from a common ancestor – simple organisms gave rise to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals (without getting into how that could have happened). This is supported by a wealth of converging evidence along with testable predictions. Common ancestry is considered by all scientists (except certain deeply religious ones) to be as well-established as many other historical facts, and is thus often referred to as “the fact of evolution.” It is of immense benefit in understanding the natural world – for example, it tells us why whales and bats share anatomical similarities with mammals, despite their superficial resemblance to fish and birds.

The second and very different aspect of evolution is the mechanism via which one species changes into another. This is called the “theory” of evolution. It is, however, important to bear in mind that the word “theory” has a very different meaning in science than in everyday conversational English. It does not refer to wild speculation, but rather to an explanatory mechanism. Most, though not all, biologists believe that random mutations, coupled with natural selection, broadly suffice to explain this mechanism. The issue is, however, of zero religious significance, as we shall explain in the answer to the next question.

3) How can we accept scientific explanations for how animal life came about? It was God who made everything!

We have a science of meteorology, but that does not stop us from saying that God “makes the wind blow and the rain fall.” We have a science of medicine, but this does not stop us from saying that God “heals the sick.” We have documented history of the process involved in winning the ’67 war, but this does not stop us from talking about God’s miraculous hand. God can work through meteorology, through medicine, through history, and through developmental biology. This is why it makes no difference if the neo-Darwinian explanation of the mechanism for evolution is true or not.

4) Doesn’t the Torah say that animals and man were created from the ground, not from earlier creatures?

Indeed it does. But what does that mean? The blessing recited over bread is “Blessed are You… Who brings bread out of the ground.” But what actually happens is that God created wheat, which man sows, nature grows, and man transforms into bread. Yet the blessing simplifies this in describing God as bringing bread out of the ground. By the same token, the description of God bringing animal life out of the ground can refer to His creating the raw material of nature and the natural processes that lead to the formation of animal life.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin

About the Author: Rabbi Natan Slifkin is the author of several works on the interface between Judaism and the natural sciences. Later this year he is publishing The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, and he is currently developing a Biblical Museum of Natural History to be located in the Beit Shemesh region. Rabbi Slifkin's website is www.zootorah.com and he also runs a popular blog at www.rationalistjudaism.com.

The author's opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Jewish Press.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.


Loading Facebook Comments ...



Imported and Older Comments:

  1. ArchieSpires says:

    THANK YOU!
    I spent hours arguing every point you listed here, but not nearly as well.
    You are an example that a person can have a foot in both the secular and non-secular worlds and still stand.
    Thank you, again;
    Asher ben’Daniel

  2. JonathanWeber says:

    As a scientist and religious Jew, I cannot agree more! There are several ways to look at things. Just a reminder, we must still be respectful of those who believe in a strict seven days.

  3. RunbaGo says:

    In the beginning G.D created heaven and earth. …… then G.D made the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. After fallen angels rebelled against G.D while living in the earth.

    then G.D renewed and restored the earth in six day to make it livable for human.

  4. EileenChupakBaranes says:

    But if you follow the order of creation in the Bible it is like the evolutionists say the order of evolution was. So G-d did create the universe but it just took longer than 6 days. The big bang was tohu v’bohu and then the sky and the seas then the land. It is all there. How did Moses know the order of evolution? Because G-d told him how he made creation.

  5. RichardGiddens says:

    There is not one example of Darwinian evolution that anyone can give of verifiable evidence of a change from one kind to another. For example, finches stayed finches. This is called adaptation NOT evolution. In Exodus it tells of the Six days of creation and gives not even a smidgeon of room for more time that that…. As if G_d would have a hard time doing what He said He did!

  6. His views are exactly what I’ve always felt on the topic.

  7. JonathanWeber says:

    I respect your opinion. But then again, we read in Psalm 90: כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול כי יעבור ואשמורים בלילה written by Moshe Rabeinu himself! A thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it has passed” The Ramban himself wrote that the Universe came into being from nothing and expanded from a grain of mustard. An exact description of the Big Bang Theory!!! 🙂

  8. BobbyJames says:

    Truly the Torah has been mishandled here. May the Lord have mercy.

  9. So if there were years or millenia between each “day” of creation, the trees and plants survived centuries or millenia without the sun? Makes sense.

  10. Thanks for posting this … I will read it later … Bound to be interesting !!

  11. And the award for first ignorant post goes to…

    Danny’El Sarmiento Ben Yehudim

    Rather than posting a well thought counter-argument, young Danny opted for snarkiness. Offering no real thought, he threw together a series of words that have almost nothing to do with the article!
    Let’s here it for DANNY!

  12. JeffEyges says:

    Yes, the evangelical from South Carolina is qualified to to tell an Orthodox rabbi how to “handle” the Torah.

    Pathetic.

  13. Pretty right on piece here. This is what differentiates us as Jews from groups like the Christians and Muslims on issues like this.

  14. NaomiSmith says:

    My argument was always “What is a day?” A day on Earth is 24 hours, but a day on Venus is equal to over 116 days on Earth.

  15. NaomiSmith says:

    What blows my mind is that I have these same thoughts and I never studied Maimonides.

  16. NaomiSmith says:

    Religion and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

  17. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    The notion that the world was created in seven days, literally and factually, is a new concept, a product of fundamentalist Christianity. This was never a Jewish dogma and really isn’t a mainstream Christian Dogma as well….

  18. Archie is that a personal attack? Shows who you worship.. Not the God of Israel.

    And speaking of ignorance, it’s “hear” not “here”. What’s it like down in momma’s basement?

  19. Archie is that a personal attack? Shows who you worship.. Not the God of Israel.

    And speaking of ignorance, it’s “hear” not “here”. What’s it like down in momma’s basement?

  20. Archie is that a personal attack? Shows who you worship.. Not the God of Israel.

    And speaking of ignorance, it’s “hear” not “here”. What’s it like down in momma’s basement?

  21. JeffEyges says:

    Completely untrue, and the evidence abounds online, but you won’t be bothered to seek it out. You’d rather simply believe whatever your right wing talking heads tell you.

  22. JonathanWeber says:

    Naomi Smith : It was the commentary of the Nachmonides (the Ramban) that describes exactly the Big Bang. – see my prior post! Amazing isn’t it!

  23. JonathanWeber says:

    Weird! I don’t believe this is Jewish theology!

  24. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.

  25. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.

  26. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.

  27. Sobriety Jon says:

    After watching the film ‘God is not dead’ is like a fresh inspiration.evolution was merely a theory.a theory may be subjective and particular

  28. JackieRozell says:

    I was taught that a day in the life of man could not be measured as a 24 hour day in the Creator’s eyes. I’ve never had a problem with this.

  29. MichaelMostofsky says:

    Jeff Eyges Jonathan it must be true because Jeff said it was. Would a pompous ass lie?

  30. Good article and allows us to not be associated with the typical “creationists” that left me very uncomfortable with. I’ve studied “evolution” from a child (my first Scholastic Book spoke of it–and scared my mom ;-)) and have been in just the mindset of the article for all these years while also being religious.

  31. Good article and allows us to not be associated with the typical “creationists” that left me very uncomfortable with. I’ve studied “evolution” from a child (my first Scholastic Book spoke of it–and scared my mom ;-)) and have been in just the mindset of the article for all these years while also being religious.

  32. JeffEyges says:

    Michael Mostofsky Aside from the fact that I’m a pompous ass – you also don’t accept evolution?

    Please do the Jewish people a favor; drop dead choking on a chitterling – and if you can take Eric Cantor with you, so much the better.

  33. check out a book by Gerald Schroeder, called the ” Genesis and the Big Bang”. Excellent explanations.

  34. LizeBartsch says:

    There is a very great theological problem to put death before the fall of mankind into sin. G-d said to Adam: If you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die. Before that time Adam and Eve did not eat animals and only plants died, not living souls. After sin came destruction and death. When the Messiah comes He will restore the creation like it was before sin came and then the lion and the lamb will lie together in peace.

  35. LizeBartsch says:

    G-d is an awesome G-d and did not need the process of death and half formed creatures and death to happen over and over again until it eventually formed perfectly working mechanisms, He did everything perfect the first time. What might have taken time is the designing part. The universe is fine-tuned and ecology works in systems. The invisible bacteria that serve as the self cleaning mechanisms of nature are very complex on a nano scale. There are NO simple life forms in nature. The simplest cell is extremely complicated. There are complex machines or factories if you will, inside a cell that manufactures proteins, so which was first, the protein or the factory that manufactures it? The one cannot exist without the other. What is half a car worth, what are you going to do with only a steering wheel and a gear box? The whole thing must be complete to be useful yet you say G-d was unable to get it right the first time???

  36. JeffEyges says:

    “But in terms of logic, I don’t see how ‘the fact of evolution’ follows as a necessity from the physical evidence.”

    If you’re really interested, TalkOrigins and Panda’s Thumb are good resources – but I don’t think you are.

    Stick to heresy hunting, Lisa. It seems to be your forte.

  37. Karen Bryant says:

    God will have the last word on this.

  38. Since God could speak and cause the world to form, is it not possible that he also chose to use evolution’s process to create all things on earth; we would still be a creation of God from the earth. Consider this: if evolution were not a part of God’s plan, where did the word or science for it come from and why would He allow such strong evidence of it? I believe God created me, but, I don’t discount His choice in which he may have done it. Denying this as a possibility, is denying God’s ability to be creative. It matters not how we came to be, but that we believe that we are a creation of God, as all things are, from the beginning.

  39. Verona John says:

    원숭같은..딤승들도 사람라고..진짜사람들를 죽이는 딤승들의 과정!

  40. MichaelLoren says:

    Evolution is likely happening as we speak. But despite the scientific research there is no direct knowledge how man came about. There are species of animals that become extinct. And new ones being discovered. The biggest challenge that religious Jews face is getting distracted and think this is a big deal.

  41. LisaLiel044 says:

    Jeff Eyges: Of course I’m interested, or I wouldn’t have asked. But TalkOrigins is a bit dense. And there are some pretty major axes to grind there.

  42. Carl Brandon says:

    God means what he says and says what He means….When the finite tell the infinite how things should be it strikes me as foolishness.

  43. ElyseDorm460 says:

    I have a problem with ppl saying that we came from monkeys the reason being, if we came from monkeys according to Darwin- in many stages then why do monkeys still exist but all the other more advanced forms of monkey are not found? shouldn’t monkeys have stopped existing, or shouldn’t have some forms between monkey and human still be around because some would have quit evolving at each stage?

  44. ElyseDorm460 says:

    Time is an illusion created for humans so everything doesn’t happen at once. In truth time does not exist. This is why God is infinite and has no beginning and no end. So was the Earth really created in six days? or in six stages? who knows…. i will believe that it was created in 6 days with the understanding that time is different for me then it is for a God who controls the entire universe.

  45. TimothyDover says:

    Evolution made the helmets giddy as it then gave them the scientific and rationalistic justification for their heinous deeds. Before that it was just radicalism. It’s a theory as it cannot be observed, all macro evidence has been thoroughly debunked. Removing the G-d of all things from the equation is dangerous, and explaining H-s ways with a theory that spits in the face of ancient history and Torah is ridiculous, scandalous even.

  46. whatever it is we are here. we have deal with our lives. we’re yids. we have Torah. millions of years or minutes. time passes.

  47. JudithYvonneDowla says:

    Freedom of choice in the Jewish school system or not? We say nay to the theory of evolution but if you insist we shall view it and get back to you with our thesis on Darwin`s Theory of Evolution. Your inquiring minds might just appreciate our points of view. So be it. Until the next time.

  48. MichaelFelgin says:

    Jeff Eyges Да ты просто левое хамло, провались к ебеней матери, мурло с претензией

  49. MichaelFelgin says:

    I recommend Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s book “immortality, resurrection, and the age of the universe”. He was also a scientist. Great book and explains a lot.

  50. Hay ! I am Jewish and did not come from no Monkey ! Darwin is a drugged up moron !

  51. DanSilagi says:

    Well, if an allegorical “day” is something like 2.25 billion years, I’m cool with that.

  52. DanSilagi says:

    There was an ancestor to both the Great Apes and humans which descended from monkeys. The monkey line continued to produce monkeys. This new line produced both apes and humans.

  53. DanSilagi says:

    Jewish dogma says the universe is 5,775 1/2 years old. It doesn’t say its first six days were measured in billions of years each, while the remaining were 24 hours in length. Since we have abundant scientific evidence the earth is billions of years older than 5,775 1/2 years, either the Tanach is wrong or its stories are allegorical, meaning it can’t be taken literally.

  54. DanSilagi says:

    Not quite because it expanded from the size of a softball. The question I have is as follows: Did the universe contract from its nearly infinite size to this 4″ incredibly massive object? And is the universe cyclical, meaning that every 35 billion years or so God recreates it?

  55. DanSilagi says:

    Michael Felgin I can’t write this in Russian, but give your buddy Comrade Czar Putin a blowjob. It would be the best sex Putin ever had.

  56. DanSilagi says:

    The same way we need to be respectful of those who believe Jews have horns. And I’m not referring to Jewish trumpet players.

  57. DanSilagi says:

    Naomi Smith Baruch Spinoza said that 400 years ago, and he was absolutely correct. He was excommunicated by the 17th-Century Dutch haredim for his troubles. Today we all remember Spinoza as a great thinker and philosopher, while the haredim of that era have been consigned to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

  58. Lize Bartsch says:

    You have a serious theological problem putting death before the fall into sin. G-d’s sovereign power and command is at stake. He said, Do NOT eat of that tree or else you die!! Death came after rebellion and disobedience. Also it is a retarded god who cannot create it right the first time but needs a process of death to try and try again. Also THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SIMPLE UNCOMPLICATED CELL, OR LIFE FORM, ALL LIFE FORMS ARE STAGGERINGLY COMPLEX – EVEN A SINGLE CELL!!!

  59. Lize Bartsch says:

    What would you do with half a washing machine or half a micro wave??? Half a thing is useless. Everything in nature is inter connected. Did the flowers wait a 1000 years for the bees to turn up to pollenate them???

  60. Lize Bartsch says:

    Why are there all over the planet trees petrified upside down oven dozens of strata which are each supposed to represent millions of years??? Why are their huge clams fossilized on top of high mountains? Why do many mountain ranges have soft W shaped curves in their strata – it is because they formed during the flood while the mud was still soft and then hardened. Why are their fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and other creatures together like you would find in a Tsunami – lots of bodies buried quickly together not one by one as things die of old age. All this and many more questions are answered in the CMI FB page and website – Creation Ministries International.

  61. Lize Bartsch says:

    Scientists know that the planets and stars in the universe are moving all the time away from each other, this is not a problem if the earth is only a few thousand years old, but billions or even millions of years ago the sun would have been on top of the earth!!! If the sun moves further away from the earth half a meter per year you could add up how close it was 10 million years ago!!!

  62. RogerWalkwitz says:

    I have degrees in science and have studied evolution for 60+ yrs. Evolutionists claim much but cannot prove anything. Evolution never happened in the past, is not happening today because it is impossible for it to happen in the first place as it goes against laws of physics and nature. Evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes put on mankind in a vain attempt to avoid accountability to the Creator God. Six days of 24 hrs per day fit very well with nature while understanding that God created everything in a mature state. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? By creation we know that God created the chicken ready to lay the first egg. A mind in rebellion against God will never understand, but the mind that loves, trusts and believes God will think His thoughts after him and understand clearly how He created everything just like He said in Genesis 1.

  63. MichaelFelgin says:

    Dan Silagi I’d rather you give it to your buddy Comrade Emir Barak Obama. Judging from your style it’s the only thing you re able to do.

  64. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Dan Silagi

    Most of the leading Rabbis believed that the world was far older then 5,775 years and yes, they thought, and many other practicing Jews though, that the world was far older so, yes, the stories in the Tanach, especially those about the creation of the world, are allegorical and to say that, as the author of this article does, is not considered “hersey” by any Rabbinical authority..

    You are assuming that it is Jewish dogma but you are projecting certain ideas upon Jewish religious authorities which they never insisted upon.

  65. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Another point: The Bible, according to the Jewish tradition, was never intended to be understood merely as a literal text. No one studies “Bible” per se in a traditional Jewish education, they read its verses and understand them via the context in which the various commentators, the most prominent of them, Rashi, explains them. Rashi’s explanations are taken from the “Torah Baal Peh’, the orally-transcribed part of the Torah, which was given to Moshe Rabeinu on Mount Sinai and later transcribed as the Talmud. There is no tradition of Biblicat literalism in Judaism unless one is a Zionist.

  66. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Hoax or no hoax, there is no evidence at all that the earth is a merely 6,000 years old and that the events as described in the Book of Genesis occurred factually and literally. Saying that there are problems with the notion and theory of Evolution, and even finding those problems plausible does not lead the indisputable conclusion that the world was created in seven days by God and that most animals were created on the fifth day and man, on the sixth day……

  67. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    If one wants to advance a plausible theory of “intelligent design” or “creationism,” then one would have to dispense with the Biblical narratives as a literal account.

  68. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Spinoza was never a scientist…

  69. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Judaism does not hold to the Christian concept of Original Sin.

  70. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Genetic theory, experimentation, and research demonstrates that all living things on the Earth are related to each other and are a part of the same genetic system.

  71. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Dan Silagi Many of the great
    Rabbis, including the Nachmanadies, the HaZal, and others were cool with that as well..

  72. DanSilagi says:

    Your problem, Arthur, is that you’re obviously smart and erudite. These are concepts foreign to most of the readers of the Jewish Press, who DO take Tanach literally.

  73. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Jonathan Weber What exactly do you mean by “this”? There are all sorts of people, of all beliefs, commenting here.

  74. RichardGiddens says:

    Jonathan, a thousand years are like yesterday…. Or like a day, if you will…. Now think of six days of creation and on the seventh day He rested. Now if ever thousand years can be applied to one day of creation…. The first day of creation is equal to 1000 years, the second day is equal to 1000 years, etc…. Then since it seems we’re getting close to the end of the 6th 1000th year mark, maybe we can start looking forward to the 1000 years of rest… The lion shall lie down with the lamb, etc… Think about it. If you want to try to say that evolution is true because 1000 is equal to one day…. That’s a far stretch if you try to apply billions of years to that passage.

    Jeff, if you look at the ‘evidence’ I think you’ll find that most for evolution is put out there with a bias flare to it. The sun…. Big mass of energy that is shrinking at a constant rate. If you add billions of years of constant shrinkage that would’ve happened to the sun, you would have a massive sun that would’ve been so big that it would’ve encompassed the earth. One simple fact that throws the lies of evolution to the dirt. There is a lot more facts on line for a six day creation if you are brave enough, and don’t let your emotions and pride dictate your decisions. Respectfully, rich

  75. DanSilagi says:

    I never said he was.

  76. Jonathan, a thousand years are like yesterday…. Or like a day, if you will…. Now think of six days of creation and on the seventh day He rested. Now if ever thousand years can be applied to one day of creation…. The first day of creation is equal to 1000 years, the second day is equal to 1000 years, etc…. Then since it seems we're getting close to the end of the 6th 1000th year mark, maybe we can start looking forward to the 1000 years of rest… The lion shall lie down with the lamb, etc… Think about it. If you want to try to say that evolution is true because 1000 is equal to one day…. That's a far stretch if you try to apply billions of years to that passage.

    Jeff, if you look at the 'evidence' I think you'll find that most for evolution is put out there with a bias flare to it. The sun…. Big mass of energy that is shrinking at a constant rate. If you add billions of years of constant shrinkage that would've happened to the sun, you would have a massive sun that would've been so big that it would've encompassed the earth. One simple fact that throws the lies of evolution to the dirt. There is a lot more facts on line for a six day creation if you are brave enough, and don't let your emotions and pride dictate your decisions. Respectfully, rich

  77. Dan Silagi says:

    I never said he was.

  78. BobbyJames says:

    The glory of the One who gave the Torah to Moses is indeed worthy. Evolutionary teachings have no place in the Truth of creation revealed by the Creator.

  79. Bobby James says:

    You don't have to be a Rabbi to understand the Torah.

  80. Bobby James says:

    The glory of the One who gave the Torah to Moses is indeed worthy. Evolutionary teachings have no place in the Truth of creation revealed by the Creator.

  81. MichaelFelgin says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz You should’ve said: “Rabbinical Judaism”. You are probably aware of the Torah Judaism of the Eretz Israel, are you not? The one that our forefathers practiced until the Rabbinical Judaism has taken over?

  82. Arthur C. Hurwitz You should've said: "Rabbinical Judaism". You are probably aware of the Torah Judaism of the Eretz Israel, are you not? The one that our forefathers practiced until the Rabbinical Judaism has taken over?

  83. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Bobby James It is clear that you are entirely ignorant about the discussion of this matter in the Jewish learning tradition. Judaism has never taken any part of the Bible literally, ever…. That is a fundamentalist Christian obsession….

  84. DanSilagi says:

    That may be true, but today’s ultra-orthodox rabbinical retards sure aren’t. They’re no better than their fundamentalist Christian and Islamic counterparts.

  85. DanSilagi says:

    The behavior of mankind, in such mundane matters as breeding dogs, prove that evolution exists, and that the process can be vastly sped up by creating the conditions which lead to change.

  86. DanSilagi says:

    If God did not want mankind to leave the Garden of Eden, He wouldn’t have created the conditions for temptation, starting with planting the Tree of Knowledge. I guess God wanted mankind to be as dumb as a stalk of asparagus, but created in His image.

    To me, this is Exhbit B that the Bible is allegorical. Exhibit A is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, not 5,775 1/2.

  87. Bobby James It is clear that you are entirely ignorant about the discussion of this matter in the Jewish learning tradition. Judaism has never taken any part of the Bible literally, ever…. That is a fundamentalist Christian obsession….

  88. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Michael Felgin This point is debatable, but also irrelevant. When I write “Judaism,” I mean the Jewish religion as it it practiced today, which some would describe as “Rabbinical Judaism.”

  89. EricGoberman says:

    In the US.. we came from England.. why are there still English ? Because not everyone left england

    It doesn’t say we “came from monkeys” and even if it did, it would mean SOME monkeys separated and evolved while others went a different way

  90. EricGoberman says:

    Bobby James I think you should keep your bible literalism in check.

    Jews have never taken it literally -including JC.

    To do so does a disservice to G-d..and the torah.

    Only the simple minded think the Fox in Aesop’s fables can talk.. That’s what you’re doing

  91. EricGoberman says:

    Richard Giddens The sun expands and contracts.. and it’s doing fine in it’s young age of 4 billion years

    Evolution is a fact.. ignoring it won’t make it go away – it just makes one look foolish

  92. DanSilagi says:

    Do you have a brother named Ben, Tim?

  93. DanSilagi says:

    The Bible’s many authors wrote it as a standalone text.

  94. EricGoberman says:

    /Evolutionists claim much but cannot prove anything./

    science never proves anything. Evolution is fact -and we have the chemistry to show it. Evolution is falsifiable..it just hasn’t been. Evolution is demonstrable- we have articles and findings daily that show it. Evolution is visible – we have common descent, genetics, that cannot be denied,.

    If you are a scientist, as you claim, then all of that arm waving needs to be supported since each and every things you said can be shown to be false:

    /because it is impossible for it to happen in the first place/

    it’s chemistry.. are you implying that chemistry doesn’t work or just that you don’t understand it ?

    //Six days of 24 hrs per day fit very well with nature while understanding that God created everything in a mature state. //

    Really ? All adults with no belly buttons > quite an assertion with no evidence but one book whose purpose is

    NOT. SCIENCE…

  95. Dan Silagi says:

    That may be true, but today's ultra-orthodox rabbinical retards sure aren't. They're no better than their fundamentalist Christian and Islamic counterparts.

  96. Dan Silagi says:

    The behavior of mankind, in such mundane matters as breeding dogs, prove that evolution exists, and that the process can be vastly sped up by creating the conditions which lead to change.

  97. Dan Silagi says:

    If God did not want mankind to leave the Garden of Eden, He wouldn't have created the conditions for temptation, starting with planting the Tree of Knowledge. I guess God wanted mankind to be as dumb as a stalk of asparagus, but created in His image.

    To me, this is Exhbit B that the Bible is allegorical. Exhibit A is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, not 5,775 1/2.

  98. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Dan Silagi

    It is not the text itself but how it is understood. So this last remark, completely irrelevant. Whatever was intended by its original compiler(s), is irrelevant. How it is understood in the Jewish religion today, that is what is under discussion here.

    Furthermore, if the Bible did have many authors and if it is, as many academic say, a fusion of different books by different authors, then a more proper and accurate phrasing of your remark might be “the Bible’s editor(s) compiled it as a stand alone text.”

  99. Lize Bartsch says:

    Genesis 3 tells the whole account of how Adam and Eve sinned against God the first time and the punishment for their disobedience. Satan, who spoke to Eve twisting the Word of God, was by then already in rebellion against God's authority (wanting to have God's position Isaiah 14, but the office was not available – there is only one self existing God, the rest of us had a beginning) along with one third of the angelic world who voted for his political party. He came stealthily just like he does today to get someone to watch porn for the first time of start smoking,etc. Satan is the god of SELF and that is what we see in the world today, no one wants to live sacrificially anymore but live for hedonistic pleasures regardless the high cost of destroying what God created so perfectly. You cannot wash your clothes in an oven or bake a cake in a washing machine, it was not designed for that.
    God created with a purpose but He wanted mankind to have a free will, not love Him preprogrammed like a robot. Even today most of our suffering is because of the fact that God honors other people's free will even when they make bad choices. This should not make us bitter but trust Him to protect us and love those regardless because they might also one day turn to God for salvation.
    According to Christianity the Lord Jesus Christ was sent as an atonement for our sins so that anyone who turns to Him for salvation are set free from sin and bondage and the eternal punishment for sin (to be forever banned from God's presence to a place where neither He nor His benefits are – light, color, grace, food, animals, trees, etc ) and given a new heart after the stony rebellious heart is taken out. I would anytime convert to Judaism (which is to me the best of all religions in the world) but I cannot deny the fact that God saved me and changed me completely after I prayed that prayer surrendering my life to Him, He gave me also a hunger and thirst for Him Word and opened it up to me, while before I thought the Word was boring afterward I could not stop reading it until today many years later. He is real His creation is real and awesome, and His offer to man is real or I am a lunatic, take your pic.

  100. Dan Silagi: If they are or are not "no better than their fundamentalist Christian and Islamic counterparts" is a different question and I really don't want to "go there." But all of them would agree that reading the Bible without the Rabbinic commentaries is irrelevant and even misleading. Judaism does not consider the Bible as a stand alone text which should be understood as having religious meaning via a literal understanding of the text without commentaries. Do some research to confirm this… Moreover, there is no definitive view of the age of the world or the origins of life which negates scientific findings. Yes, there are people who do believe that the world is 5,000 years old and created in six literal days, but there have always been other authorities which have offered alternative views, not merely in the modern period but throughout the post-Temple era, that is to say the last 2,000 years.

  101. Michael Felgin This point is debatable, but also irrelevant. When I write "Judaism," I mean the Jewish religion as it it practiced today, which some would describe as "Rabbinical Judaism."

  102. Eric Goberman says:

    In the US.. we came from England.. why are there still English ? Because not everyone left england

    It doesn't say we "came from monkeys" and even if it did, it would mean SOME monkeys separated and evolved while others went a different way

  103. Eric Goberman says:

    Bobby James I think you should keep your bible literalism in check.

    Jews have never taken it literally -including JC.

    To do so does a disservice to G-d..and the torah.

    Only the simple minded think the Fox in Aesop's fables can talk.. That's what you're doing

  104. Eric Goberman says:

    Richard Giddens The sun expands and contracts.. and it's doing fine in it's young age of 4 billion years

    Evolution is a fact.. ignoring it won't make it go away – it just makes one look foolish

  105. Eric Goberman says:

    /Evolutionists claim much but cannot prove anything./

    science never proves anything. Evolution is fact -and we have the chemistry to show it. Evolution is falsifiable..it just hasn't been. Evolution is demonstrable- we have articles and findings daily that show it. Evolution is visible – we have common descent, genetics, that cannot be denied,.

    If you are a scientist, as you claim, then all of that arm waving needs to be supported since each and every things you said can be shown to be false:

    /because it is impossible for it to happen in the first place/

    it's chemistry.. are you implying that chemistry doesn't work or just that you don't understand it ?

    //Six days of 24 hrs per day fit very well with nature while understanding that God created everything in a mature state. //

    Really ? All adults with no belly buttons > quite an assertion with no evidence but one book whose purpose is

    NOT. SCIENCE…

  106. Dan Silagi

    It is not the text itself but how it is understood. So this last remark, completely irrelevant. Whatever was intended by its original compiler(s), is irrelevant. How it is understood in the Jewish religion today, that is what is under discussion here.

    Furthermore, if the Bible did have many authors and if it is, as many academic say, a fusion of different books by different authors, then a more proper and accurate phrasing of your remark might be "the Bible's editor(s) compiled it as a stand alone text."

  107. HrantGeorge says:

    Isn’t there an admonition about bearing false witness in your mythology? If you studied for 60+ years you certainly haven’t learned much.

  108. LizeBartsch says:

    Nothing has even ordered itself into complex mechanisms, I don’t care if you add another few billion years. The Law of entropy goes rather from order to disorder when there’s no maintenance, not the other way around.

  109. Hrant George says:

    Isn't there an admonition about bearing false witness in your mythology? If you studied for 60+ years you certainly haven't learned much.

  110. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Who is “we”?

  111. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch Yet we have gravity, evolution, plants,

    While the WHOLE is going toward entropy that doesn’t imply each component is

  112. This is the one commandment they think irrelevant because fort these sort of people, the ends always justifies the means and that can never be the outlook of true religion.

  113. IndependenceDaySequel says:

    If woman came from man’s rib, why are there still ribs?

    If Ice comes from water, why is there still water?

    We did not evolve from “monkeys” we, along with monkeys have both evolved from a shared ancestor, that is long extinct.

  114. IndependenceDaySequel says:

    False. There are many examples – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

  115. Lize Bartsch says:

    Nothing has even ordered itself into complex mechanisms, I don't care if you add another few billion years. The Law of entropy goes rather from order to disorder when there's no maintenance, not the other way around.

  116. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch Yet we have gravity, evolution, plants,

    While the WHOLE is going toward entropy that doesn't imply each component is

  117. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    This is the one commandment they think irrelevant because for these sort of people, the ends always justifies the means and that can never be the outlook of true religion.

  118. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz, in my humble view absolute dating is completely false. It is a guessing process, starting with the number they give to “half time” and buying into the belief of uncertainty principle, thinking G-d plays the dice. But He doesn’t. There are other issues with absolute dating which makes it a joke.

    Having said that I do not believe the Torah gave us the correct version of Creation, even if we don’t take it literally.
    X
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/422752.

  119. MikiBacsi169 says:

    I think the same way. By removing G-d from science scientists got lost in the forest. Well… those who are atheists.
    X
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/422752

  120. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    I am sorry, this just reflects a lack-of-knowledge on your part. Judaism doesn’t and never has taken the Hebrew Bible literally…. What I wrote above is not some sort of intellectual mechanization on my part, it is a statement of fact.

  121. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Elyse, it has been taught in Jewish mysticism the same way. G-d supposedly has His own time.

    Of course I am just an am ha’aretz but I think that G-d created this world (and perhaps other worlds) with the characteristics of space, time, material and spirit. These are all His creations so we may safely assume none of these affect G-d, He is totally independent of all these.
    On the other hand He could have created other worlds with some totally different characteristic(s), something we humans (at least me) can’t even imagine.

    Therefore, I believe that G-d may exists in a completely different “world”, with different characteristics, none of which would be time.

    But then keep in mind that I am just an am ha’aretz.
    X
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/422752

  122. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Lize, you’re right, except that G-d doesn’t seem to be the kind of G-d who created the world perfect. It is as it is. (Although this is up for debate.)
    But when it comes to living creatures I think we can all agree that they are imperfect. If nothing else our millions of sicknesses and our death implicates that.
    I for one would rather be a thinking rock, which has no enemies in entire nature, and lives forever. 🙂
    X
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/422752

  123. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Miki Bacsi I am still waiting for someone to offer a credible alternative view of the origins of the Earth, life on Earth, and the origins and nature of the universe than that offered by mainstream science which remains the most credible theory and explanation. I am open to it… where is it?

    If you don’t think that the Torah gave us the correct version of Creation, then what do you think that correct version is?

  124. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Miki Bacsi Why do you think that this view which you articulated above contradict the findings of mainstream settled Science?

  125. EricGoberman says:

    Miki Bacsi When G-d leaves a calling card we’ll take it.

    In the meantime, we are commanded to learn science and the world..

    It has no effect on our faith

  126. I have to come to the aid of Benz which is, in fact, the truth. In the Koran it does say that the world was created during a period of six days, but, as was and is the case in Jewish religious learning, the commentators and Muslim ulima, religious scholars, postulated that this was either alegorical or that the Koran's terminology, that is to say in an Islamic context, God's terminology, is not properly understood by mere men. I am not really versed in this issue but perhaps, you, Benz, can help me out….

  127. Miki Bacsi I am still waiting for someone to offer a credible alternative view of the origins of the Earth, life on Earth, and the origins and nature of the universe than that offered by mainstream science which remains the most credible theory and explanation. I am open to it… where is it?

    If you don't think that the Torah gave us the correct version of Creation, then what do you think that correct version is?

  128. Miki Bacsi Why do you think that this view which you articulated above contradict the findings of mainstream settled Science?

  129. Glenny Mercury Lpn Don't be so egotistical and self-referential. Muslims have many other things to do and think about besides killing Jews. What I wrote was factual and is entirely removed from the question of if they "..would gladly slit your (my) throat or not…." This is independent of the question of if I am self-loathing or not. Do you believe in objective facts?

  130. The only Religion obsessed with a Biblical literal account of the creation of the world, man and the Cosmos is is Christianity.

  131. Eric Goberman says:

    Miki Bacsi When G-d leaves a calling card we'll take it.

    In the meantime, we are commanded to learn science and the world..

    It has no effect on our faith

  132. Glenny Mercury Lpn I have never addressed the question of if they would kill us or not in this thread. I have only addressed factual information about the Islamic approach the origins of the Universe, the Cosmos, and the Earth. I have never written anywhere in this threat "surely they wont kill us" so please don't ascribe to me postulations which were never mine. By the way, you live in Michigan and in Michigan there are many many Arabs. Do you fear them killing you there?

  133. Thats kind of a loaded question isn't it? TY for coming to the aid of a poor Muslim. I've read the Koran, The Torah, The Talmud & the Bible front to back. You sir are Fraternizing with the enemy. It's a dangerous game.

  134. Glenny Mercury Lpn

    Yes, very dangerous, on the Internet. Meanwhile, he is in Algeria and I am in New York, two places very far away from each other.

    You fail to understand the concept of academic discussion. I am not coming to his aid in any way other than to contribute to the discussion because no one else knows anything about what he was saying or their prejudices and ignorance blind them to his points. I am also reading and reading, and since I do know something about this subject in Judaism, it would interest me to know what the Muslims think about it as well..

  135. Benz Amine says:

    Glenny Mercury Lpn if we were face to face right now discussing i would be dead.
    "they want to kill us" so let's kill them before they do, that's what waged wars in the arab and muslims and killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in the name of fighting terrorism.
    your friend is wise, you should stay objectif in academic discussions so you can understand all the opinions and know the truth.

  136. Benz Amine says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz koran says that the universe was created in six days, in a verse it says a day is like 50000 in our calendar, in another 1000 years,..etc
    koran does not give stories of how the world was created or stories of the prophets and ancient nations only if it had a "moral".
    first islamic scholars fascinated with science had to go to the torah and talmud, and the bible to give religious explanation to science, and they called it "israeliat", in this days many muslims believe in most of the "israeliats" like giant humans,…etc
    when evolution dabate started, muslim scholars stoud up with chrestian creationists and took their arguments.
    but in this days, many start to believe in evolution with little conditions.
    for me i don't see a contradiction between koran and evolution, like this article says, we know the scientific explanations of wind and rain, but we still say that gods sends the winds and drops the rain, it could be the same in creation, but i don't know this returns to scholars.

  137. Glenny Mercury Lpn Please stop assuming you know what my opinions are about anything… Furthermore, if what you say is what you think, then I would advise you to move out of Michigan…

  138. GlennyMercury says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz G-d however does. Dan Silagi, it’s called free will. Your argument is invalid because G-d created us with free will. Kinda neat how you know more than the Creator of the Multi-Verse, Nice try though 🙂

  139. DanSilagi says:

    Glenny Mercury Lpn So God wants us to be as dumb as a stalk of asparagus? I guess that’s why he created you.

  140. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Glenny, are you saying that G-d recognized the concept of Original Sin but Judaism doesn’t? If so, have you changed religions?

  141. Arthur C. Hurwitz G-d however does. Dan Silagi, it's called free will. Your argument is invalid because G-d created us with free will. Kinda neat how you know more than the Creator of the Multi-Verse, Nice try though 🙂

  142. Dan Silagi says:

    Glenny Mercury Lpn So God wants us to be as dumb as a stalk of asparagus? I guess that's why he created you.

  143. Glenny, are you saying that G-d recognized the concept of Original Sin but Judaism doesn't? If so, have you changed religions?

  144. Benz-One of the Koranic verses provided states that Allah gave the Holy Land to the sons of Israel until the Day of Judgment (Surah Al-Ma’ida, verse 21), and the other (Surah Al-Shara’a, verse 59) says that the land was bequeathed to the Jews. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Art just cause we disagree doesn't mean I need to move lol, I was beginning to think you might have a hunk of a brain until you said that.SMH

  145. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Dan Silagi: If they are or are not “no better than their fundamentalist Christian and Islamic counterparts” is a separate issue and I really don’t want to go there at all. But all of them would agree that reading the Bible without the Rabbinic commentaries is irrelevant and even misleading. Judaism does not consider the Bible as a stand alone text which should be understood as having religious meaning via a literal understanding of the text without commentaries. Do some research to confirm this… Moreover, there is no definitive view of the age of the world or the origins of life which negates scientific findings. Yes, there are people who do believe that the world is 5,000 years old and created in six literal days, but there have always been other authorities which have offered alternative views, not merely in the modern period but throughout the post-Temple era, that is to say for the last 2,000 years.

  146. LizeBartsch says:

    Must have been hard for those flowers to wait a thousand years for the bees to evolve and other insects to pollenate them!! Problem is that all of nature is eco systems dependent on each other. 🙂

  147. LizeBartsch says:

    Dear friend, you must remember I am a young earth creationist who believes and have studied the entire Bible through and through and meditated on it for many years, I am fascinated by G-d and nature. Sickness, thorns and other difficulties are part of the curse AFTER sin and rebellion came into the world Genesis 3 and this condition will be restored after Messiah comes, soon!! G-d had to make life and living difficult for fallen man so that they would have to work harder and less time to get into trouble by sinning. We read in Genesis 13:10 that Lot chose Sodom and Gomorrah which area was like the Garden of Eden with plenty of water and lush but in Gen.19 we read of the terrible sin of that place that all the men gathered to lust to have sex with the angels who came to Lot’s house and had to be struck with blindness. The Canaanites were punished for their hedonistic lifestyle, never thinking what is right or wrong but only to gratify fleshly lusts, here we can clearly see why G-d had to slow the process of rotting in society down by making life more difficult for mankind. I have another example. In Africa there came a group of well doers to a village of women who had to walk far to fetch water each day at the river so they installed a water pump and tap for them at the village. A year or two later they came to see how things were going. The women were all lazy, over weight and drunkenness prevailed!!!

  148. Lize Bartsch says:

    Must have been hard for those flowers to wait a thousand years for the bees to evolve and other insects to pollenate them!! Problem is that all of nature is eco systems dependent on each other. 🙂

  149. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch It would have been… if that were evolution but it isn’t/.

    That’s the kind of dishonest argument that christian fundies make when they make up stuff about things they don’t understand

  150. Glenny Mercury Lpn So Glenny, you are not even Jewish at all… You are an American Fundamentalist Christian…! Only an American fundamentalist Christian could be so full of hate, racism, and the tendency to bear false witness…
    ..

  151. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch It would have been… if that were evolution but it isn't/.

    That's the kind of dishonest argument that christian fundies make when they make up stuff about things they don't understand

  152. LizeBartsch says:

    You have not answered my question but to try to ridicule it, that’s what atheists usually do, attack the person’s character instead of answering questions scientifically. I have studied the ‘process of evolution’, there is NO evidence whatsoever for it. There is lots of evidence all over the earth for a worldwide flood. So then they came up with the silly theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ when the fossil record of intermediate forms delivered nothing.

  153. Lize Bartsch says:

    You have not answered my question but to try to ridicule it, that's what atheists usually do, attack the person's character instead of answering questions scientifically. I have studied the 'process of evolution', there is NO evidence whatsoever for it. There is lots of evidence all over the earth for a worldwide flood. So then they came up with the silly theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' when the fossil record of intermediate forms delivered nothing.

  154. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Dear Lize,

    I think you are Christian. I am Jewish, so I look at the theory of “original sin” from another viewpoint, and have some reservations concerning that..
    If you want to have an interesting reading on the Bible (and I have nothing to do with this book, I didn’t write it) I suggest you to look at: Who Wrote the Bible, from Friedman.
    http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

    If you read it you will see that there were two similar traditions in “original” Judaism and if you once read the book and then the Torah according to the divided versions you will actually agree with me that in one of the versions the Israelite priests apparently believed in the fable of original sin, too.

    But under the term “imperfect” I rather meant that our bodies could have been designed in a way that we don’t need eat, drink, breath and we would still be alive. Or, we could have been designed with steel limbs … etc, which could be easily fixed and doesn’t even hurt.

  155. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Eric Goberman, I challenged G-d, too, concerning the calling card. 🙂
    It’s among my poems.

    But I also realized that in this world everything has an opposite (good bad, “light darkness” etc) except for G-d.
    And we perceive, or recognize each and every one of these opposites for the exact reason that they have opposites. For example if we lived in constant darkness we wouldn’t know that we live in darkness. Of course we wouldn’t have a clue about light either.

    Therefore, since G-d does not have an opposite we can’t perceive G-d even though He is most likely “all over the place”, we don’t even need to outreach our hands.

    On the other hand it is commendable to learn science and nature. The more we learn the more we realize that we know nothing. And that nothing in our case means we don’t know how G-d did all these, but we realize this world can exists only by Creation.

  156. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Yes Arthur, but it only proves that the same “Person” created them all. Our biosphere is a big ecosystem. The living things depend on each other. Therefore, to me, it is hard to imagine why would G-d have created animals with characteristics that renders them independent of plants. Or why would G-d have created humans in a way that they don’t need to take plants and animal flesh in order to survive physically?

    So, of course, all living forms are related, very similar. I can’t see how similarity proves either evolution or Creation.

  157. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Dan, in Judaism we believe the same way. Strictly sticking to the literal meaning, the Garden of Eden was not meant to be a condition in which mankind should have lived forever as cows. (By the way this is the reason why a lot of religious Jews do not believe in a Heaven in which only the good people will live forever, doing nothing but praise G-d “all day”. The exception are those Jews who have been affected by Christianity, they just can’t see it in their infinite righteousness. 🙂 )
    And then if we take the story of Eden allegorically we open a very wide door for possible interpretations.

    By the way I suggest to you a book from a physicist, who became a rabbi. In this book he guesses the age of the world to 15 billion years – and all that is based on the Biblical account. Of course, not literally:
    http://www.amazon.ca/Sefer-Yetzirah-The-Book-Creation/dp/0877288550
    I have nothing to do with this book.
    And I think you will love it even if you are an atheist.

  158. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Naomi Smith, according to the Creation account the time that take G-d to form space, Earth and the Sun was one day..
    “And there was evening and there was morning one day.”
    Note that almost all translations mention “first day” and not “one day”.
    On the other hand nobody knows how many seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years it took for G-d to do these in this world.
    Above I posted an interesting book about this subject:
    http://www.amazon.ca/Sefer-Yetzirah-The-Book-Creation/dp/0877288550
    I have nothing to do with this book.

  159. DanSilagi says:

    Miki, I’m Jewish, although not observant, and certainly not an atheist. I believe our job as Jews (and this goes for those of all religions) is to discover God, to wrestle with Him, as did Abraham, and to reconcile religion and science. I will check this book out.

  160. Miki Bacsi says:

    Dear Lize,

    I think you are Christian. I am Jewish, so I look at the theory of "original sin" from another viewpoint, and have some reservations concerning that..
    If you want to have an interesting reading on the Bible (and I have nothing to do with this book, I didn't write it) I suggest you the look at Who Wrote the Bible, from Friedman:
    http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

    If you read it you will see that there were two similar traditions in "original" Judaism and if you once read the book and then the Torah according to the divided versions you will actually agree with me that according to one of the versions the Israelite priests apparently believed in the fable of original sin, too, which is not too surprising.

    But under the term "imperfect" I rather meant that our bodies could have been designed in a way that we don't need eat, drink, breath and we would still be alive. Or, we could have been designed with steel limbs … etc, which can be easily fixed and doesn't even hurt.

  161. Miki Bacsi says:

    Eric Goberman, I challenged G-d, too, concerning the calling card. 🙂
    It's among my poems.

    But I also realized that in this world everything has an opposite (good <> bad, "light <> darkness" etc) except for G-d.
    And we perceive, or recognize each and every one of these opposites for the exact reason that they have opposites. For example if we lived in constant darkness we wouldn't know that we live in darkness. Of course we wouldn't have a clue about light either.

    Therefore, since G-d does not have an opposite we can't perceive G-d even though He is most likely "all over the place", we don't even need to outreach our hands.

    On the other hand it is commendable to learn science and nature. The more we learn the more we realize that we know nothing. And that nothing in our case means we don't know how G-d did all these, but we realize this world can exists only by Creation.

  162. Miki Bacsi says:

    Yes Arthur, but it only proves that the same "Person" created them all. Our biosphere is a big ecosystem. The living things depend on each other. Therefore, to me, it is hard to imagine why would G-d have created animals with characteristics that renders them independent of plants. Or why would G-d have created humans in a way that they don't need to take plants and animal flesh in order to survive physically?

    So, of course, all living forms are related, very similar. I can't see how similarity proves either evolution or Creation.

  163. Miki Bacsi says:

    Dan, in Judaism we believe the same way. Strictly sticking to the literal meaning, the Garden of Eden was not meant to be a condition in which mankind should have lived forever as cows. (By the way this is the reason why a lot of religious Jews do not believe in a Heaven in which only the good people will live forever, doing nothing but praise G-d "all day". The exception are those Jews who have been affected by Christianity, they just can't see it in their infinite righteousness. 🙂 )
    And then if we take the story of Eden allegorically we open a very wide door for possible interpretations.

    By the way I suggest to you a book from a physicist, who became a rabbi. In this book he guesses the age of the world to 15 billion years – and all that is based on the Biblical account. Of course, not literally:
    http://www.amazon.ca/Sefer-Yetzirah-The-Book-Creation/dp/0877288550
    I have nothing to do with this book.
    And I think you will love it even if you are an atheist.

  164. Miki Bacsi says:

    Glenny Mercury Lpn, you will need to reread the Ten Commandments. (And let's not mention here the Talmud in this respect which is much worse…)
    In the commandment where G-d commands men not be jealous and do not desire his fellow man's possessions one of the possessions mentioned is the man's wife.
    How do you interpret that?

  165. Miki Bacsi says:

    Naomi Smith, according to the Creation account the time that take G-d to form space, Earth and the Sun was one day..
    "And there was evening and there was morning one day."
    Note that almost all translations mention "first day" and not "one day".
    On the other hand nobody knows how many seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years it took for G-d to do these in this world.
    Above I posted an interesting book about this subject:
    http://www.amazon.ca/Sefer-Yetzirah-The-Book-Creation/dp/0877288550
    I have nothing to do with this book.

  166. Dan Silagi says:

    Miki, I'm Jewish, although not observant, and certainly not an atheist. I believe our job as Jews (and this goes for those of all religions) is to discover God, to wrestle with Him, as did Abraham, and to reconcile religion and science. I will check this book out.

  167. Dan Silagi says:

    I am one of those Jews. I have attended many many rock concerts, including a half-dozen by the band whose lead singer is the Son of Satan himself. I am also 100% Jewish, and woe to the fool who'd be unwise enough to call me a non-Jew to my face.

  168. LizeBartsch says:

    Dan lol, if you breed dogs they don’t become giraffes, they are still dogs!! Neither have any of them developed fins or wings or hoofs

  169. LizeBartsch says:

    It was Jacob who wrestled with God, not Abraham. After the wrestle his name was changed to Israel. Having a true wrestle with G-d will always end up in your nature changed and that your flesh becomes less important but your character more. Jacob was weakened during the wrestle and was half cripple afterward.

  170. DanSilagi says:

    Lize Bartsch I stand corrected. But God couldn’t defeat Jacob, even after a match which lasted all night. The Hulkster would have made mincemeat out of Him.

  171. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Miki Bacsi It doesn’t prove anything other than that the notion that Man is a being entirely separate from other lifeforms on the earth is entirely false. This was the prevailing given assumption prior to the mid-19th Century. It doesn’t, however, prove that there was a “Creator” either…

  172. LizeBartsch says:

    It was never G-d’s intention to defeat him but to convert him into His image, which is righteousness. Just as it was not G-d’s purpose to burn the burning bush!! This is the wonderful nature of a loving Almighty G-d, He wants to set us on fire but without destroying us.

  173. LizeBartsch says:

    Yes, you don’t only have matter, there are laws in the physical world and the world is also fine tuned. If you have laws you need a Law Giver.

  174. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch We wrote the laws based on our observations. They only apply to our universe as we can see and measure it. They may not apply everywhere ((black holes) or in a different incarnation of the universe

    There is no science law giver..if you think there is ..feel free to provide evidence..otherwise they are just observations that man has made

  175. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch / world is also fine tuned./

    not for life and not for humans. 99.999 % f the universe is fatal to man.

    75% of the surface of the earth is fatal to man

    the earth orbit varies 5 million miles in radius during the year

    the sun causes cancer and destroys our cells

    there is no fine tuning.

    For fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science it sounds great

    When one learn science one understands the implications in that statement – they stop making it.

    We have life on one planet.. why do we have more than a sextillion of them ? Why not just one..

    Why has it taken 13 billion years for the earth to develop life ? Why not right away ?

  176. Lize Bartsch says:

    Dan, my dear friend, you earnestly need to repent of your idolatry. I prayed many years for my one son who was in the world and worldly things, he repented and came to the Lord two years ago, today he is a man of G-d who finds his pleasures no longer in temporal pleasures this world has to offer but in studying the Word and meditating thereon, Psalm 1 and preaching even in prisons. You don't have the right definition of being Jewish and neither am I afraid of you to say it in your face for your own benefit.

  177. Lize Bartsch says:

    Dan lol, if you breed dogs they don't become giraffes, they are still dogs!! Neither have any of them developed fins or wings or hoofs

  178. Lize Bartsch says:

    It was Jacob who wrestled with God, not Abraham. After the wrestle his name was changed to Israel. Having a true wrestle with G-d will always end up in your nature changed and that your flesh becomes less important but your character more. Jacob was weakened during the wrestle and was half cripple afterward.

  179. Miki Bacsi It doesn't prove anything other than that the notion that Man is a being entirely separate from other lifeforms on the earth is entirely false. This was the prevailing given assumption prior to the mid-19th Century. It doesn't, however, prove that there was a "Creator" either…

  180. Glenny Mercury Lpn Ergo, you are not Jewish at all…

  181. Lize Bartsch says:

    Yes, you don't only have matter, there are laws in the physical world and the world is also fine tuned. If you have laws you need a Law Giver.

  182. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : “For fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science (fine tuning) sounds great.” If you had read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe before you wrote that, you wouldn’t have written that.

  183. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch We wrote the laws based on our observations. They only apply to our universe as we can see and measure it. They may not apply everywhere ((black holes) or in a different incarnation of the universe

    There is no science law giver..if you think there is ..feel free to provide evidence..otherwise they are just observations that man has made

  184. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch / world is also fine tuned./

    not for life and not for humans. 99.999 % f the universe is fatal to man.

    75% of the surface of the earth is fatal to man

    the earth orbit varies 5 million miles in radius during the year

    the sun causes cancer and destroys our cells

    there is no fine tuning.

    For fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science it sounds great

    When one learn science one understands the implications in that statement – they stop making it.

    We have life on one planet.. why do we have more than a sextillion of them ? Why not just one..

    Why has it taken 13 billion years for the earth to develop life ? Why not right away ?

  185. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : I’m not sure who you mean to include when you say “Jews” have never taken any part of the Bible literally. Were there not rabbis who wrote books defending the geocentric theory of the world?

  186. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman IF the rule from the rabbi’s is.. If science is fact and it contradicts the Torah.. then the Torah is incorrect” then we’re prepared not to take any part of it literally or foolishly.

  187. EricGoberman says:

    Miki Bacsi Knowing science does not dispute G-d. Science says nothing of G-d ..nor does it need to

  188. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman THe ubiverse is not fine turned.. it is quite naive to think it is.

    Your article appears to agree with you.. but not if you read it closely..

    We appear to the former..

    Reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently”

  189. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : If you had said that at first, I wouldn’t have commented.

  190. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : The wiki page lists some highly respected non-Creationists, who are a lot smarter than either of us in their fields, who believe the universe was fine-tuned for life to be possible. Period. That’s enough to show that your claim is misguided.

  191. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman /who believe the universe was fine-tuned for life to be possible/

    yet there is no evidence of such.. just belief. There are those who believe there are aliens.. there are those who believe the are none.. neither have evidence..

    the default is not to believe an outlandish assertion without any evidence whatsoever

  192. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Back to the Torah.. Do we quibble over the literal words of the bible while losing site of the message ? Do we require that every sentence be reality and lose the philosophy ?

    Do we argue whether the fox or the crow could speak and what language ? Or do we understand that we get the message without getting embroiled in the means it was communicated ?

  193. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch / if you breed dogs t/

    then you are using the principles of evolution.. mutation , common descent, and (human) selection of the traits that will succeed

    If a dog litter had slightly longer necks the breeder would not allow that to continue and never breed those dogs.

    BUT should the breeder select for dogs with longer necks.. generation after generation..it might end up looking like a giraffe.

  194. EricGoberman says:

    Dan Silagi /and to reconcile religion and science. /

    what is there to reconcile ? Religion and science do not intersect.. they are different things with different purposes

    Science is how we look at and understand the natural world.
    Religion is for our soul (so to speak)

    There is no science in the Torah ..there is nothing to contradict

  195. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman “there is no evidence of such.. just belief. ” — So, when you confidently assert “THe (sic) ubiverse (sic) is not fine turned (sic)”, is that a belief or a fact? You compare the scientists Dicke, Hoyle, Gribbin, and Rees to believers in aliens. Gevalt.
    Concerning “back to the Torah”, your questions are all good. They go off in a new direction as far as your and my previous conversation is concerned, but maybe the questions fit in better with your and Lisa’s conversation.

  196. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman That’s OK.. still good to have the conversation

  197. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Assertions are assertions. Why should I suddenly accept an assertion because of who said it. Without evidence it can come from Hoyle the scienctists or Hoyle the bridge player.

    It remains an unfounded assertion..and as such requires evidence.

    The difference between Jews and others is that we DO discuss and argue the words and the syntax and the meanings. We are open to try to understand as much as we can.

    The difference between (Maimonides and Hillel) vs Comfort and Ham) is beyond vast

  198. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch / have studied the entire Bible through and through and meditated on it for many years/

    If only you had spent a fraction of that time studying science

  199. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : It’s true that science says nothing of God, but scientISTS sure say something.

  200. BobbyJames says:

    Why have the Torah if it is just a foolish story? Then a lot of national history happened for nothing. I trust the Torah… every word. It is the truth of the Creator.

  201. EricGoberman says:

    Bobby James Then you probably miss the point of the Torah in the same way fundamental christians miss the point of the New Testament. Completely

  202. EricGoberman says:

    Bobby James Other than you. who used the word “foolish” ?

  203. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman I can’t help their foolishness. I do object to it, though.

    The hundreds and thousands of hours I have spent learning and using science .. there has never been a comment about G-d at all.. no where.

    If there were – it wouldn’t be text I could trust

  204. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : Are you asserting that Gribbins and Rees’ book doesn’t count as evidence?

  205. BobbyJames says:

    Eric Goberman You did when you said “foolishly”

  206. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : Well, you used the word “foolish”, but I think Bobby James misinterpreted your context.

  207. EricGoberman says:

    Lize Bartsch The argument you used is old and tired..and a strawman.

    What did we do until mouths developed
    What did giraffes do while waiting for their long necks ?

    THe questions make no sense directly and show a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of evolution.

    Things CO evolved. The eye didn’t pop up on one critter and the spread through the population..

    a cell or cell cluster had a mutation that made it responsive to light. By being responsive it was more able to avoid predation and survive to make more copies of offspring. That change became the norm for the population.

    There is are several scholarly articles about the eye, or the digestive system, and others that show how they changed over millions of years.

    Horse have the same forelimb construction that we do. A humerous,.. a radius and an ulna, and a wrist..but oddly the have only one toe that we call a hoof. The hoof itself is just a fingernail. the other four toes have disappeared.

    We know this because we have the fossils of horses that date back millions of years, from the time they were the size of a dog to today.

    The evidence is there.. If you want to see scientific articles I would be more than happy to help you find some that are interesting and not dry as fossils in a desert

  208. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman surprised ?

  209. EricGoberman says:

    Bobby James Reading it incorrectly is foolish.. that’s on the person

    that doesn’t mean the text is foolish.

  210. BobbyJames says:

    I see… Divine revelation can be trumped by scientific “fact” from those the Divine created because they have devised a system to knowingly unlock the history of the world! Now the argument is in full context. thanks for the clarification. Warning: If the book is flawed in one area it cannot be trusted fully in any area.

  211. EricGoberman says:

    Bobby James Fundy Christianity does not apply to Jewish Teachings.

    save it for the bible belt..

    Science has made no commentary on divine revelation..it’s supernatural while science is natural

    show some evidence and science will take a look.

    /Warning: If the book is flawed in one area it cannot be trusted fully in any area./

    only if you take it literally.

    For YOU it MUST be flawed

    to the Jews..it’s just fine and still as meaningful and without flaw as it has been for over 3000 years

    Sorry for your loss

  212. Eric Goberman : "For fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science (fine tuning) sounds great." If you had read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe before you wrote that, you wouldn't have written that.

  213. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman This is going to sound more snarky than I want.. Is spiderman evidence of spiderman ?

    They wrote a book.. and (like many others) see what they want. There remains no evidence that the universe is fine tuned for life.. I think the evidence is reverse..

    If it were fine tuned then the universe would have been created and life would have existed up front.. from the start. 14 billion years ? A billion + years until the conditions on earth allowed for self replicating molecules ? Man couldn’t have survived earth a billion years ago.

    no.. Life formed in this tiny sliver of time, on this microscopic dot called earth ..because it could.. not because it was fine tuned

  214. Eric Goberman : I'm not sure who you mean to include when you say "Jews" have never taken any part of the Bible literally. Were there not rabbis who wrote books defending the geocentric theory of the world?

  215. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : “If it were fine tuned then the universe would have been created and life would have existed up front.. from the start. ” — A sensible theory, but inconclusive.

  216. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Exactly.. We don’t know.. best we can do is offer opinions..and unless they are completely unreasonable, hold on to them until there’s evidence.

    I’m not denying G-d.. just the arguments without evidence of things like ‘find tuning’

  217. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman We have 15 billion years. trillions of planets that appear to be earthlike… mathematically there’s a good chance that life did, does, or will exist elsewhere…

    so much for fine tuning of our little blue speck of dust in the universe

  218. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : “a cell or cell cluster had a mutation that made it responsive to light.” Maybe so. But I think you should remember to word it as though it’s a theory. ” The more careful authors frequently use the word “may”.

  219. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Theory is the highest we get in science. Gravity is equally “Only a theory”..

    The evolution of the eye is quite amazing..and we have numerous examples alive today that show the various stages..

    Sadly, our eyes is only moderately effective compared to other animals..but it works

  220. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman If you[‘re interested

    http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

    and yes. Science most often caveats with may/maybe/perhaps.

    Science is not absolute.. it never “proves” it can only explain with the facts at hand.. New facts may mean updated explanations..

    I wouldn’t have it any other way !

    Math booze and photos deal with proof..:)

  221. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : I know all about theory, and how it’s the highest we get in science. That does not take anything away from what I said, though. Concerning the various stages — we know we can create a sequence; we just don’t know if this specimen turned into that specimen. To blur that distinction is a serious omission.

  222. Eric Goberman says:

    Miki Bacsi Knowing science does not dispute G-d. Science says nothing of G-d ..nor does it need to

  223. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman THe ubiverse is not fine turned.. it is quite naive to think it is.

    Your article appears to agree with you.. but not if you read it closely..

    We appear to the former..

    Reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently"

  224. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : Billions of years and trillions of planets are nothing compared to some of the probabilities that the scientists are telling us. The following numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
    Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
    Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
    Mass Density of Universe1 1:10^59
    Cosmological Constant 1:10^120
    I know, I know, “no evidence”, right?

  225. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman the evidence is overwhelming for evolition.. and more than that.. it’s so simple and elegant.. natural or god inspried.. it’s amazing

    back later.. daddy duty

  226. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : Please don’t change the topic from the theory of eye evolution to the theory of evolution in general.

  227. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Miki Bacsi Another point: For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that carbon dating is completely false. Then how old do you think that the Earth is and moreover, based on what observations and evidence do you draw your conclusions?

  228. Eric Goberman : If you had said that at first, I wouldn't have commented.

  229. Eric Goberman : The wiki page lists some highly respected non-Creationists, who are a lot smarter than either of us in their fields, who believe the universe was fine-tuned for life to be possible. Period. That's enough to show that your claim is misguided.

  230. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman /who believe the universe was fine-tuned for life to be possible/

    yet there is no evidence of such.. just belief. There are those who believe there are aliens.. there are those who believe the are none.. neither have evidence..

    the default is not to believe an outlandish assertion without any evidence whatsoever

  231. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman Back to the Torah.. Do we quibble over the literal words of the bible while losing site of the message ? Do we require that every sentence be reality and lose the philosophy ?

    Do we argue whether the fox or the crow could speak and what language ? Or do we understand that we get the message without getting embroiled in the means it was communicated ?

  232. Eric Goberman says:

    Dan Silagi /and to reconcile religion and science. /

    what is there to reconcile ? Religion and science do not intersect.. they are different things with different purposes

    Science is how we look at and understand the natural world.
    Religion is for our soul (so to speak)

    There is no science in the Torah ..there is nothing to contradict

  233. Eric Goberman "there is no evidence of such.. just belief. " — So, when you confidently assert "THe (sic) ubiverse (sic) is not fine turned (sic)", is that a belief or a fact? You compare the scientists Dicke, Hoyle, Gribbin, and Rees to believers in aliens. Gevalt.
    Concerning "back to the Torah", your questions are all good. They go off in a new direction as far as your and my previous conversation is concerned, but maybe the questions fit in better with your and Lisa's conversation.

  234. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman That's OK.. still good to have the conversation

  235. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman Assertions are assertions. Why should I suddenly accept an assertion because of who said it. Without evidence it can come from Hoyle the scienctists or Hoyle the bridge player.

    It remains an unfounded assertion..and as such requires evidence.

    The difference between Jews and others is that we DO discuss and argue the words and the syntax and the meanings. We are open to try to understand as much as we can.

    The difference between (Maimonides and Hillel) vs Comfort and Ham) is beyond vast

  236. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch / have studied the entire Bible through and through and meditated on it for many years/

    If only you had spent a fraction of that time studying science

  237. Eric Goberman : It's true that science says nothing of God, but scientISTS sure say something.

  238. Bobby James says:

    Why have the Torah if it is just a foolish story? Then a lot of national history happened for nothing. I trust the Torah… every word. It is the truth of the Creator.

  239. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch // You don't have the right definition of being Jewish and neither am I afraid of you to say it in your face for your own benefit.//

    the irony "No true scotsman" applied to a jew by a fundamental christian..who doesn't understand christianity

  240. Eric Goberman says:

    Bobby James Then you probably miss the point of the Torah in the same way fundamental christians miss the point of the New Testament. Completely

  241. Eric Goberman says:

    Bobby James Other than you. who used the word "foolish" ?

  242. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman I can't help their foolishness. I do object to it, though.

    The hundreds and thousands of hours I have spent learning and using science .. there has never been a comment about G-d at all.. no where.

    If there were – it wouldn't be text I could trust

  243. Eric Goberman : Are you asserting that Gribbins and Rees' book doesn't count as evidence?

  244. Bobby James says:

    Eric Goberman You did when you said "foolishly"

  245. Eric Goberman : Well, you used the word "foolish", but I think Bobby James misinterpreted your context.

  246. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    Eric Goberman ..or have a longer neck, at least..

  247. Eric Goberman says:

    Lize Bartsch The argument you used is old and tired..and a strawman.

    What did we do until mouths developed
    What did giraffes do while waiting for their long necks ?

    THe questions make no sense directly and show a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of evolution.

    Things CO evolved. The eye didn't pop up on one critter and the spread through the population..

    a cell or cell cluster had a mutation that made it responsive to light. By being responsive it was more able to avoid predation and survive to make more copies of offspring. That change became the norm for the population.

    There is are several scholarly articles about the eye, or the digestive system, and others that show how they changed over millions of years.

    Horse have the same forelimb construction that we do. A humerous,.. a radius and an ulna, and a wrist..but oddly the have only one toe that we call a hoof. The hoof itself is just a fingernail. the other four toes have disappeared.

    We know this because we have the fossils of horses that date back millions of years, from the time they were the size of a dog to today.

    The evidence is there.. If you want to see scientific articles I would be more than happy to help you find some that are interesting and not dry as fossils in a desert

  248. Eric Goberman says:

    Bobby James Reading it incorrectly is foolish.. that's on the person

    that doesn't mean the text is foolish.

  249. Bobby James says:

    I see… Divine revelation can be trumped by scientific "fact" from those the Divine created because they have devised a system to knowingly unlock the history of the world! Now the argument is in full context. thanks for the clarification. Warning: If the book is flawed in one area it cannot be trusted fully in any area.

  250. Eric Goberman says:

    Bobby James Fundy Christianity does not apply to Jewish Teachings.

    save it for the bible belt..

    Science has made no commentary on divine revelation..it's supernatural while science is natural

    show some evidence and science will take a look.

    /Warning: If the book is flawed in one area it cannot be trusted fully in any area./

    only if you take it literally.

    For YOU it MUST be flawed

    to the Jews..it's just fine and still as meaningful and without flaw as it has been for over 3000 years

    Sorry for your loss

  251. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman This is going to sound more snarky than I want.. Is spiderman evidence of spiderman ?

    They wrote a book.. and (like many others) see what they want. There remains no evidence that the universe is fine tuned for life.. I think the evidence is reverse..

    If it were fine tuned then the universe would have been created and life would have existed up front.. from the start. 14 billion years ? A billion + years until the conditions on earth allowed for self replicating molecules ? Man couldn't have survived earth a billion years ago.

    no.. Life formed in this tiny sliver of time, on this microscopic dot called earth ..because it could.. not because it was fine tuned

  252. Eric Goberman : "If it were fine tuned then the universe would have been created and life would have existed up front.. from the start. " — A sensible theory, but inconclusive.

  253. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman We have 15 billion years. trillions of planets that appear to be earthlike… mathematically there's a good chance that life did, does, or will exist elsewhere…

    so much for fine tuning of our little blue speck of dust in the universe

  254. Eric Goberman : "a cell or cell cluster had a mutation that made it responsive to light." Maybe so. But I think you should remember to word it as though it's a theory. "

  255. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman Theory is the highest we get in science. Gravity is equally "Only a theory"..

    The evolution of the eye is quite amazing..and we have numerous examples alive today that show the various stages..

    Sadly, our eyes is only moderately effective compared to other animals..but it works

  256. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman If you['re interested

    http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

    and yes. Science most often caveats with may/maybe/perhaps.

    Science is not absolute.. it never "proves" it can only explain with the facts at hand.. New facts may mean updated explanations..

    I wouldn't have it any other way !

    Math booze and photos deal with proof..:)

  257. Eric Goberman : I know all about theory, and how it's the highest we get in science. That does not take anything away from what I said, though. Concerning the various stages — we know we can create a sequence; we just don't know if this specimen turned into that specimen. To blur that distinction is a serious omission.

  258. Eric Goberman : Billions of years and trillions of planets are nothing compared to some of the probabilities that the scientists are telling us. The following numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
    Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
    Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
    Mass Density of Universe1 1:10^59
    Cosmological Constant 1:10^120
    I know, I know, "no evidence", right?

  259. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman the evidence is overwhelming for evolition.. and more than that.. it's so simple and elegant.. natural or god inspried.. it's amazing

    back later.. daddy duty

  260. Eric Goberman : Please don't change the topic from the theory of eye evolution to the theory of evolution in general.

  261. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Biological evolution is all the same.. whether it’s the eye or hearing or digestion. No one is really more complex than the other.

    Random mutations that are either good bad or indifferent

    good provides some reproductive advantage

    The advantage (and the benign) is passed to the next generation by common descent.

    add a billion years and we get all sorts of changes. They aren’t great advantages, they are just moderate advantages.

  262. Miki Bacsi Another point: For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that carbon dating is completely false. Then how old do you think that the Earth is and moreover, based on what observations and evidence do you draw your conclusions?

  263. Eric Goberman ..or have a longer neck, at least..

  264. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : You say that the evidence for evolition (sic) is overwhelming. Fine. But if you don’t differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theories as to its mechanism, you’re not going to win any debates. The theories as to the mechanism of eye evolution is *not* the same as the fact that it evolved. You *know* the eye evolved, but you *think* you know *how* it evolved. You should choose your wording to show you know the difference.

  265. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman The theory(ies) of how the eye evolved is pretty consistent among the scientists who study it. Science never states (and I apologize if I did) that the theory is final/proof/done. Nothing is science is every proven.. again, math, booze, and photos deal in proof), science can only take the facts (all available) and explain them. When it reaches the stage of theory, it’s pretty solid.

    Falsifiable – absolutely.. it’s just that the chances of that are rare.

    We have seen the Theory of Flight corrected recently.. it was flawed for a hundred years.. New evidence..new tests.. and the theory was rewritten.

    It might happen to evolution…we can only wait and see what the evidence says

  266. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman Biological evolution is all the same.. whether it's the eye or hearing or digestion. No one is really more complex than the other.

    Random mutations that are either good bad or indifferent

    good provides some reproductive advantage

    The advantage (and the benign) is passed to the next generation by common descent.

    add a billion years and we get all sorts of changes. They aren't great advantages, they are just moderate advantages.

  267. Eric Goberman : You say that the evidence for evolition (sic) is overwhelming. Fine. But if you don't differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theories as to its mechanism, you're not going to win any debates. The theories as to the mechanism of eye evolution is *not* the same as the fact that it evolved. You *know* the eye evolved, but you *think* you know *how* it evolved. You should choose your wording to show you know the difference.

  268. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman The theory(ies) of how the eye evolved is pretty consistent among the scientists who study it. Science never states (and I apologize if I did) that the theory is final/proof/done. Nothing is science is every proven.. again, math, booze, and photos deal in proof), science can only take the facts (all available) and explain them. When it reaches the stage of theory, it's pretty solid.

    Falsifiable – absolutely.. it's just that the chances of that are rare.

    We have seen the Theory of Flight corrected recently.. it was flawed for a hundred years.. New evidence..new tests.. and the theory was rewritten.

    It might happen to evolution…we can only wait and see what the evidence says

  269. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Lize Bartsch, G-d’s wrestling with Jacob is understood figuratively. Nobody can seriously believe that any human could wrestle with G-d and prevail.

    Naturally, there are all kinds of interpretations of this wrestling.
    Mine is that humans are allowed to ask tough questions from G-d and challenge G-d concerning issues that are not clear for the individual.
    Among many this is one of the theme’s of my little book. The book’s title “Israel from Jacob”, comes from a poem with the same title and talk about this questioning, or if you like quarrel with God.

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/422752
    If you send me a friend’s request on Facebook I can send you the whole thing free.

  270. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman I missed this earlier.. Sorry !

    But we are here… We can play games with the stats but they don’t change the facts. It just makes it more amazing

  271. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Hi Dan, Wow, we could be brothers! 🙂
    I think the same way you do. Well, OK… I am a little bit observant. I am one of those “pick and choose Jew.” 🙂

  272. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Hi Arthur,

    I have no idea how G-d created the world, but as one of those ignorant ones I pray to G-d every day to reveal it to me. So far He didn’t. 🙂
    The sequence given in the Torah is possible only because G-d could have done it that way, if He really wanted to.
    But I think of another sequence that seems to be more aligned with scientific facts we know today.

    As for the age of the Earth I cannot even guess. All absolute dating are absolute jokes, including the uranium/thorium method, so I can’t even guess it. Besides, in my humble view everything in our world is expanding, which includes time as well. If we look at it that way, a year which we measure today was a second or even less at the time of Creation.

    But then there are some interesting things:
    If planet Earth had dry continents and oceans for billions of years, all our oceans and seas should be as salty, if not saltier than the the Dead Sea in Israel.
    On the other hand when scientists drill down into the ice close to the north pole or at Antarctica they can count the yearly layers of ice. And they count hundreds of thousands of such layers. I just hope they don’t cheat with it.

    And then we can talk about a hook shaped nail found in a column of coal in a coal mine, in which the coal was supposed to be 300 million years old.

    So, I am just as perplexed as anyone else. 🙂

  273. ArthurC.Hurwitz says:

    In other words, you have nothing to offer other than disputing Mainstream Scientific findings… that’s fine but as I wrote earlier, I am waiting for a proposed alternative.

  274. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman : What facts are you referring to? And what is made more amazing?

  275. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman I was replying to your post about how statistically rare life is and how if one itty bitty thing changed..we wouldn’t be.

  276. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman But it doesn’t cause you to pause and ponder, “hmm, maybe it *was* fine-tuned”?

  277. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman Not at all. 99% of the universe is fatal to life ..80% of the earth is fatal to humans..

    It took 12-14 billion years for earth to be habitable for humans.. If we accept the scientific theories then life developed around what was available..then adapted as the earth changed.

    If life started at the same time then I would wonder.

    We also only know life on our planet.. With the trillion trillion other planets that may be habitable by some life..who knows what we’ll someday find. Worlds that are fatal to us but home to millions of other species that can’t live on earth

  278. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Arthur, I think you will be waiting for a long time. 🙂

  279. MikiBacsi169 says:

    ” Science says nothing of G-d ..nor does it need to ”

    Eric, that is the problem with today’s science. If you spent so much time studying science you should know that G-d and science lived very close and very well together for thousands of years and science was evolving.
    If I correctly recall even Darwin said that the first life on Earth was made by G-d.

    Locking G-d completely out of science is known only for 100-120 years, and this actually means those scientists whose publications are not decried or jeered at by the atheist crowd.
    What today’s scientists do is the same thing I saw in the commie country I grew up. Anyone with a different opinion is mocked and bumped, or been elbowed into a corner.

    But then, I am not worried. As soon as one of us will be able to make a functional living cell in a lab even you will realize that life had to be started by Someone.

  280. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman I missed this earlier.. Sorry !

    But we are here… We can play games with the stats but they don't change the facts. It just makes it more amazing

  281. Miki Bacsi says:

    Hi Dan, Wow, we could be brothers! 🙂
    I think the same way you do. Well, OK… I am a little bit observant. I am one of those "pick and choose Jew." 🙂

  282. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz , the main issue are two issues:
    Does G-d exist in a realm which also has a form of time?
    Or the realm of G-d has no time whatsoever?
    Things like “what the characteristics of G-d are” I don’t even ask. I just would like to know in “what” does He exist?

    Oh… I don’t believe too much in mainstream science any more. And most importantly I can’t believe that science was, is or ever will be settled. At least not until G-d settles all the issues for us, but for that He will have to manifest Himself to all of us.
    Before that science will be in a constant change. 100 years from now our grandchildren will laugh their asses off at our current theories.

  283. EricGoberman says:

    Miki Bacsi /If you spent so much time studying science you should know that G-d and science lived very close and very well together for thousands of years and science was evolving. /

    and yet.. they don’t actually intersect.

    Newton said god designed the planetary orbits and couldn’t figure out the equations.. LaPlacce did it for him

    Flight was for the gods.. we have airplanes

    man first thought fire came from the gods in the form of lightning.. we have zippo lighters..

    The Torah is not a science book..Maimonides said that if science(Fact & Reality) and the Torah disagree – reinterpret the Torah.

    It does not diminish G-d in the slightest

    //Locking G-d completely out of science is known only for 100-120 years, and this actually means those scientists whose publications are not decried or jeered at by the atheist crowd. /

    Yet 33% of the Nobel winners are Jewish..

    What does it matter whether it was 100-120 days or 100-120 centuries ? G-d is not “locked out” Science deals with nature and natural explanations

    G-d is supernatural.. If there’s no evidence science cannot examine it. Seems pretty simple.

    /What today’s scientists do is the same thing I saw in the commie country I grew up. Anyone with a different opinion is mocked and bumped, or been elbowed into a corner. /

    what you see in science is NOT what you saw where you grew up.

    Present science.. giftwrapping religion in a lab coat is not science
    assuming god then fitting the evidence is not science
    picking one religious story over the other 4000 stories of religious/god creation is not science

    THAT”S why they are dismissed and jeered.. They try to pass off religious dogma as science..and it’s not

  284. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Eric, I think what Lize meant was that the laws of nature, that is the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry couldn’t develop from nothingness.
    Someone had to create them, too, before, or while He was creating this Universe. You know, like a computer: The software and the hardware is designed at the same time, otherwise it wouldn’t work.
    I wonder if you can imagine a supercomputer developing by chance out there “in one of those universes” with the “Windows Super” to drive it, and of course with a power source? Because frankly, to me that sounds a fable for children.

  285. Miki Bacsi says:

    Hi Arthur,

    I have no idea how G-d created the world, but as one of those ignorant ones I pray to G-d every day to reveal it to me. So far He didn't. 🙂
    The sequence given in the Torah is possible only because G-d could have done it that way, if He really wanted to.
    But I think of another sequence that seems to be more aligned with scientific facts we know today.

    As for the age of the Earth I cannot even guess. All absolute dating are absolute jokes, including the uranium/thorium method, so I can't even guess it. Besides, in my humble view everything in our world is expanding, which includes time as well. If we look at it that way, a year which we measure today was a second or even less at the time of Creation.

    But then there are some interesting things:
    If planet Earth had dry continents and oceans for billions of years, all our oceans and seas should be as salty, if not saltier than the the Dead Sea in Israel.
    On the other hand when scientists drill down into the ice close to the north pole or at Antarctica they can count the yearly layers of ice. And they count hundreds of thousands of such layers. I just hope they don't cheat with it.

    And then we can talk about a hook shaped nail found in a column of coal in a coal mine, in which the coal was supposed to be 300 million years old.

    So, I am just as perplexed as anyone else. 🙂

  286. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman I have to separate my ideas here. A) The fact that 99% of the universe is fatal to life is irrelevant to the proposal that earth is conducive to life. B) The belief that 80% of the earth is fatal to humans does not take into account the oceans, which provide the environment for the food chain on which humans live. (And besides, who said you should focus only on *human* life?) C) The fact that the age of the earth is old and the age of humans is relatively young does not really address the fine tuning argument. D) That there might be life elsewhere in the universe does not affect the fine tuning argument. E) If you’re playing poker, and you don’t even get a pair but your competitor gets a Royal Flush, would you think, “eh, the odds are actually the same for either hand”? or would you suspect that someone was pulling a fast one?

  287. In other words, you have nothing to offer other than disputing Mainstream Scientific findings… that's fine but as I wrote earlier, I am waiting for a proposed alternative.

  288. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Well, that’s why I say that the Torah is not the blueprint of Creation, at least I can’t believe that it is. At the same time I do not believe in any other former creation stories either.

    I might even go so far as to say that I can’t really believe G-d ever gave mankind any religion or law code. All are man-made – some of which are nice way to try to understand G-d.

    But this does not mean we must shut G-d out of the picture.

    And the evidence for G-d is the Universe itself. It is that simple.

  289. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz, the fact that scientists were wrong as it is usual (they are wrong now as well) does not prove Creation and does not prove evolution either.

  290. EricGoberman says:

    Miki Bacsi / that the laws of nature, that is the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry couldn’t develop from nothingness.
    Someone had to create them,/

    that’s begging the question. The laws we have are the laws we wrote based on our observations.. we didn’t find tablets with flaming letters with
    e=mc^2

  291. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman /If you’re playing poker, and you don’t even get a pair but your competitor gets a Royal Flush, would you think, “eh, the odds are actually the same for either hand”? or would you suspect that someone was pulling a fast one?/

    only if it happened several times in a row

    Speaking of cards.. The problem comes in when the question is asked.

    Take a fair deck.. shuffle and deal then out face up.

    the odds of getting the cards in that order (now that you’ve dealt them) is 1.0. 100% because there they are..

    if you asked the question before dealing out the cards “What are the odds of the cards in the specific order of a (whatever the order comes out) then you have magnitudes less chance of that than just about anything.

  292. EricGoberman says:

    Miki Bacsi /I wonder if you can imagine a supercomputer developing by chance out there “in one of those universes” with the “Windows Super” to drive it, and of course with a power source? Because frankly, to me that sounds a fable for children./

    it would be.. but then you aren’t asking about life – evolution – which has no goal..nor can those components breed.

    We are looking at the results and saying .. :”Oh that’s amazing.. someone/thing had to make that” as if there were a target.

    It’s not.. it’s more like finding a scenery in nature..where everything LOOKS like it were placed perfectly but we know trees grow where they can, rocks fall where they fall because of gravity, and streams flow where the terrain allows them

  293. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman A) It might take you three Royal flushes in a flow to start growing suspicious, but it would take me just one. B) Your card scenario is not much different from mine, so it’s not like you were educating me on anything there. C) “then you have magnitudes less chance of that than just about anything.” — but more chance than those magnitudes that were presented in that table of mine above.

  294. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman It might take you three Royal flushes in a flow to start growing suspicious, but it would take me just one

    you don’t play cards much..Statistically.. it happens all the time

    / Your card scenario is not much different from mine, so it’s not like you were educating me on anything there./

    it’s when the question is asked.. It makes a big difference- again.. statistcally

    /but more chance than those magnitudes that were presented in that table of mine above./

    1/(52!) x 3^(10^14)..

    which is smaller than the numbers you presented– so LESS probable

  295. PhilSilverman429 says:

    Eric Goberman A) I know very well that when the question is asked is vital. I thought it was obvious from my words, but I guess not. B) Shouldn’t my numbers get multiplied by each other?

  296. EricGoberman says:

    Phil Silverman not really

    have a happy father’s day

    Time to go

  297. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Hi Eric Goberman,

    When mankind learned about the laws of math, physics, chemistry does not affect the fact that these laws were created by an intelligent being. Namely, G-d.

    Why didn’t G-d teach us all these laws? Because He didn’t teach us anything. We must figure them out ourselves.
    This might be part of a package to make our little hell here more terrible. But I am not sure about G-d’s intentions either.

    The other issue: You say life has no goal. Well, of course that is true for an atheist, but we who know G-d this way or another, for us there must be a purpose for all this. Even if the purpose is nothing but suffering both physically and mentally on this planet.
    I’ve been wrestling with HaShem over this issue quite a bit while I wrote my little poems.

  298. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman I was replying to your post about how statistically rare life is and how if one itty bitty thing changed..we wouldn't be.

  299. Eric Goberman But it doesn't cause you to pause and ponder, "hmm, maybe it *was* fine-tuned"?

  300. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman Not at all. 99% of the universe is fatal to life ..80% of the earth is fatal to humans..

    It took 12-14 billion years for earth to be habitable for humans.. If we accept the scientific theories then life developed around what was available..then adapted as the earth changed.

    If life started at the same time then I would wonder.

    We also only know life on our planet.. With the trillion trillion other planets that may be habitable by some life..who knows what we'll someday find. Worlds that are fatal to us but home to millions of other species that can't live on earth

  301. Miki Bacsi says:

    Arthur, I think you will be waiting for a long time. 🙂

  302. Miki Bacsi says:

    " Science says nothing of G-d ..nor does it need to "

    Eric, that is the problem with today's science. If you spent so much time studying science you should know that G-d and science lived very close and very well together for thousands of years and science was evolving.
    If I correctly recall even Darwin said that the first life on Earth was made by G-d.

    Locking G-d completely out of science is known only for 100-120 years, and this actually means those scientists whose publications are not decried or jeered at by the atheist crowd.
    What today's scientists do is the same thing I saw in the commie country I grew up. Anyone with a different opinion is mocked and bumped, or been elbowed into a corner.

    But then, I am not worried. As soon as one of us will be able to make a functional living cell in a lab even you will realize that life had to be started by Someone.

  303. Miki Bacsi says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz , the main issue are two issues:
    Does G-d exist in a realm which also has a form of time?
    Or the realm of G-d has no time whatsoever?
    Things like "what the characteristics of G-d are" I don't even ask. I just would like to know in "what" does He exist?

    Oh… I don't believe too much in mainstream science any more. And most importantly I can't believe that science was, is or ever will be settled. At least not until G-d settles all the issues for us, but for that He will have to manifest Himself to all of us.
    Before that science will be in a constant change. 100 years from now our grandchildren will laugh their asses off at our current theories.

  304. Eric Goberman says:

    Miki Bacsi /If you spent so much time studying science you should know that G-d and science lived very close and very well together for thousands of years and science was evolving. /

    and yet.. they don't actually intersect.

    Newton said god designed the planetary orbits and couldn't figure out the equations.. LaPlacce did it for him

    Flight was for the gods.. we have airplanes

    man first thought fire came from the gods in the form of lightning.. we have zippo lighters..

    The Torah is not a science book..Maimonides said that if science(Fact & Reality) and the Torah disagree – reinterpret the Torah.

    It does not diminish G-d in the slightest

    //Locking G-d completely out of science is known only for 100-120 years, and this actually means those scientists whose publications are not decried or jeered at by the atheist crowd. /

    Yet 33% of the Nobel winners are Jewish..

    What does it matter whether it was 100-120 days or 100-120 centuries ? G-d is not "locked out" Science deals with nature and natural explanations

    G-d is supernatural.. If there's no evidence science cannot examine it. Seems pretty simple.

    /What today's scientists do is the same thing I saw in the commie country I grew up. Anyone with a different opinion is mocked and bumped, or been elbowed into a corner. /

    what you see in science is NOT what you saw where you grew up.

    Present science.. giftwrapping religion in a lab coat is not science
    assuming god then fitting the evidence is not science
    picking one religious story over the other 4000 stories of religious/god creation is not science

    THAT"S why they are dismissed and jeered.. They try to pass off religious dogma as science..and it's not

  305. Miki Bacsi says:

    Eric, I think what Lize meant was that the laws of nature, that is the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry couldn't develop from nothingness.
    Someone had to create them, too, before, or while He was creating this Universe. You know, like a computer: The software and the hardware is designed at the same time, otherwise it wouldn't work.
    I wonder if you can imagine a supercomputer developing by chance out there "in one of those universes" with the "Windows Super" to drive it, and of course with a power source? Because frankly, to me that sounds a fable for children.

  306. Eric Goberman I have to separate my ideas here. A) The fact that 99% of the universe is fatal to life is irrelevant to the proposal that earth is conducive to life. B) The belief that 80% of the earth is fatal to humans does not take into account the oceans, which provide the environment for the food chain on which humans live. (And besides, who said you should focus only on *human* life?) C) The fact that the age of the earth is old and the age of humans is relatively young does not really address the fine tuning argument. D) That there might be life elsewhere in the universe does not affect the fine tuning argument. E) If you're playing poker, and you don't even get a pair but your competitor gets a Royal Flush, would you think, "eh, the odds are actually the same for either hand"? or would you suspect that someone was pulling a fast one?

  307. Miki Bacsi says:

    Well, that's why I say that the Torah is not the blueprint of Creation, at least I can't believe that it is. At the same time I do not believe in any other former creation stories either.

    I might even go so far as to say that I can't really believe G-d ever gave mankind any religion or law code. All are man-made – some of which are nice way to try to understand G-d.

    But this does not mean we must shut G-d out of the picture.

    And the evidence for G-d is the Universe itself. It is that simple.

  308. Miki Bacsi says:

    Arthur C. Hurwitz, the fact that scientists were wrong as it is usual (they are wrong now as well) does not prove Creation and does not prove evolution either.

  309. Eric Goberman says:

    Miki Bacsi / that the laws of nature, that is the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry couldn't develop from nothingness.
    Someone had to create them,/

    that's begging the question. The laws we have are the laws we wrote based on our observations.. we didn't find tablets with flaming letters with
    e=mc^2

  310. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman /If you're playing poker, and you don't even get a pair but your competitor gets a Royal Flush, would you think, "eh, the odds are actually the same for either hand"? or would you suspect that someone was pulling a fast one?/

    only if it happened several times in a row

    Speaking of cards.. The problem comes in when the question is asked.

    Take a fair deck.. shuffle and deal then out face up.

    the odds of getting the cards in that order (now that you've dealt them) is 1.0. 100% because there they are..

    if you asked the question before dealing out the cards "What are the odds of the cards in the specific order of a (whatever the order comes out) then you have magnitudes less chance of that than just about anything.

  311. Eric Goberman says:

    Miki Bacsi /I wonder if you can imagine a supercomputer developing by chance out there "in one of those universes" with the "Windows Super" to drive it, and of course with a power source? Because frankly, to me that sounds a fable for children./

    it would be.. but then you aren't asking about life – evolution – which has no goal..nor can those components breed.

    We are looking at the results and saying .. :"Oh that's amazing.. someone/thing had to make that" as if there were a target.

    It's not.. it's more like finding a scenery in nature..where everything LOOKS like it were placed perfectly but we know trees grow where they can, rocks fall where they fall because of gravity, and streams flow where the terrain allows them

  312. Eric Goberman A) It might take you three Royal flushes in a flow to start growing suspicious, but it would take me just one. B) Your card scenario is not much different from mine, so it's not like you were educating me on anything there. C) "then you have magnitudes less chance of that than just about anything." — but more chance than those magnitudes that were presented in that table of mine above.

  313. Eric Goberman says:

    Phil Silverman not really

    have a happy father's day

    Time to go

  314. Miki Bacsi says:

    Hi Eric Goberman,

    When mankind learned about the laws of math, physics, chemistry does not affect the fact that these laws were created by an intelligent being. Namely, G-d.

    Why didn't G-d teach us all these laws? Because He didn't teach us anything. We must figure them out ourselves.
    This might be part of a package to make our little hell here more terrible. But I am not sure about G-d's intentions either.

    The other issue: You say life has no goal. Well, of course that is true for an atheist, but we who know G-d this way or another, for us there must be a purpose for all this. Even if the purpose is nothing but suffering both physically and mentally on this planet.
    I've been wrestling with HaShem over this issue quite a bit while I wrote my little poems.

  315. StanleyCastro910 says:

    A quote from the Midrash, Kohelet Rabba, reminds me of the principle of Evolution:

    “Everything he made it beautiful in its time”. Rabbi Tanchuma stated: “In its time the world was created and it wasn’t fitting to be created prior to this, rather according to its hour was it created, for it was stated, “Everything he made it beautiful in its time”. Rabbi Abahu stated: “from here we deduce that the Holy One Blessed Be He, would build worlds and destroy them, create worlds and destroy them until he created these and he said this is pleasing to me, those are not pleasing to me. Rabbi Elazar states this entrance is open to the depth, for it was stated (Brei/Genesis chapter 1):”And the L-rd saw that all that he made behold it was very good”.

    How could the principle of Evolution contradict the Cosmic (God’s) and Natural Laws if G-d intended all of creation to perpetually change so that it may come into its Image and Attributes, more closer and closer? CHANGE and EVOLUTION is needed internally and externally to propel us in the ever-perpetuating process of perfection towards Holiness, and eventually, Godhood. 🙂

  316. MikiBacsi169 says:

    Stanley Castro, why would G-d wait for the dice to roll on its desired side when He can create that almost right away?

    Btw, do you think G-d was experimenting? Would that mean that G-d is not omniscient? (I am not being sarcastic.) I ask this question because sometimes I had the feelings, too, that G-d is experimenting.

    It is possible (for me… I can imagine) that there are other “parallel” universes out there, all G-d’s creation. And some, many, or all those worlds might have been created with some totally different characteristics from ours. That means the other worlds do not consist of space, time, material and spirit, but something else. Who know what?


Current Top Story
MK Shelly Yacimovich meeting with Ilan Moreno, father of war hero Emanuel Moreno, and a soldier who served with him, January 28, 2008.
Peace Now Urging Destruction of War Heros’ Monuments

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/rationalist-judaism/ten-questions-on-evolution-and-judaism/2014/06/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: