Science vs Torah. And the winner is....

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 4 20 21 22 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

TzenaRena

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 5:15 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

TzenaRena wrote:

Just because every science textbook bases itself on that? So what?

Actually, the fact that every science textbook bases itself on it is a very telling point in it's favor.

Look at it this way: if every doctor told you that smoking was dangerous, would you believe them?

If every lawyer told you that you could be sued for slander if you say X in public, would you believe them?

If every architect told you that if you build your house a certain way it'll fall down in a year, would you believe them?

Obviously, the answer in all three cases is yes. Uninamity among experts is an extremely strong point in evolution's favor.
Tammy

Not at all. There is no proof there. And textbooks are not written by experts for that matter, because if they were, they would include what real experts have been saying, that the theories that scientists were espousing for the longest time since the evolutionary doctrine was proposed, have largely been disproved, or proven to be extremely problematic, riddled with inconsistencies, and displaced by other theories, yet the textbooks, continue blithely to ignore this, make no mention of it, and continue their merry indoctrination of their captive target audience, the young, thus shaping the view of society at large.

Quote:

"Theory" in scientific terms does not have the same meaning as it does in the general public. As I'm sure you've heard before, gravity is a "theory" too

faigie

Thu, Jul 26 2007, 5:21 pm

..............all those questions are explained in the article.......

Seraph

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 12:16 am

Ok, I spoke to my husband about this thread, and he has two comments.

He said anyone who takes the torah 100% bipashtus is being stupid- because so many things in torah are NOT ALLOWED to be taken as pshat...

Secondly, "Kishem she'ani roked kinegdech vi'eni yachol lingoa bach" doesn't at ALL contradict that people went to the moon...
The people who went to the moon weren't able to touch the moon- they stepped onto it, but in a space suit, with space gloves and boots and breathing oxygen from earth...
For all that they got soooo close to the moon- they still couldn't touch it with their actual body.

HindaRochel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 1:28 am

TzenaRena wrote:

What theory have expert replaced evolution with? What inconsistincies have been found? Most textbooks for children are simplified to the extreme. Take a picture in a friends child's schoolbook on Alaska where there is a picture of a darken sun and a full sun, making it seem as if for six months there is NO light in Alaska and for 6 months there is NO night. The theory isn't presented completely, but I don't think it is inaccurate as in over turned.

Quote:

"Theory" in scientific terms does not have the same meaning as it does in the general public. As I'm sure you've heard before, gravity is a "theory" too

. yes, gravity is a theory, and remains one, because it too, can only be scientifically observed, rather than proven.

However, unlike that comparison,evolutionary "developments" have never been observed either.[/quote]

You are incorrect. All emphasis and changes in color are mine.
From Five Major Misconeptions about Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq......html

"Evolution has never been observed."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq......html

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, If we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

There is lots more. Just google.

Tefila

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 1:35 am

Quote:

I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

OP I'm actually suprised that one needs to write a thread such as this topic on a frum forum to convince those that I thought were convinced Confused

Sadly from some of the responses, I can see why a topic such as this is needed, some of us need to go back to basics Sad

BeershevaBubby

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 2:02 am

Tefila wrote:

Quote:

I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't gotten more support in this thread. Does no one else admit that Torah is truer than science, as I proved at the start of the thread?

OP I'm actually suprised that one needs to write a thread such as this topic on a frum forum to convince those that I thought were convinced :?

Sadly from some of the responses, I can see why a topic such as this is needed, some of us need to go back to basics :(

And once again, debate and differences of opinion gets reduced to catiness.

Thanks SO much.

Not.

HindaRochel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 2:55 am

breslov wrote:

Secondly, "Kishem she'ani roked kinegdech vi'eni yachol lingoa bach" doesn't at ALL contradict that people went to the moon...
The people who went to the moon weren't able to touch the moon- they stepped onto it, but in a space suit, with space gloves and boots and breathing oxygen from earth...
For all that they got soooo close to the moon- they still couldn't touch it with their actual body.

Breslov, a bit off topic but I would like to hear your husband's responses to these questions...pm me or email or call me with the answers privately if he/you would prefer, but his response is intellectually stimulating, and produces these questions:

Is touching something from the moon, something substantial, such as a piece of the moon itself (rock, earth) not considered touching the moon? As we have moon rocks on the earth now. Or must one touch the moon intact?

If one could set up a device around the moon, so that one could touch the moon itself, would that change the validity of the phrase?

Isn't touching through something still considered touching? If I touched my husband, when I was in niddah, on his shoe for instance, or touched his bare leg with my foot which had on shoes or socks, deliberately, wouldn't I still be considered touching him? Or is there a Halachic difference? There may be, and it may be important to rely on in some instances.

Seraph

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 3:11 am

HindaRochel wrote:

breslov wrote:

I find my husband intelectually stimulating as well. Wink

One of his perks- you can definitely count on him to come up with chiddushim and other insightful answers...
My husband and I discussed moon rocks, and we came to the conclusion that touching moon rocks is like touching the dirt of e'y... And then that sprang into a discussion about whether if you bring dirt from E'y to chu'l and want to plant in it during shmitta- is it permissible... but thats off topic, isn't it?

Basically, touching moon rocks is touching a part of the moon, but still isn't the moon itself. Just like if you took a rock from israel and brought it to chutz laaretz and stepped on it, you can't really claim that because of that, you stepped on the ground in e'y and touched it, etc...
I think halachically, touching through something else is not considered the same status as touching not through something else. I'll try to think of an example.... When eating bread, isnt there an inyan that if you touch the bread with your hands, you have to wash, but if theres a circumstance where you can't wash, you should hold the bread through a bag?
And as for if they were able to make a device that with that, you could actually touch the moon with your bare hands... well, when they make that device, we'll discuss the reprecussions.

Seraph

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 3:12 am

And I think my husband also mentioned that if you have to transfer your own environment (meaning the air you need to breathe), its not 100% as if you are touching the moon, because you're bringing a "part of the earth" with you. I dunno what he's basing that on, but yea...

HindaRochel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 3:47 am

You are right about the bread...that is a great answer, and I had forgottten about that inyan....so halachically there would be a difference.
And about bringing earths environment; I don't know. You would still be touching the moon, it would just be a modified moon, or part of the moon.

But it is interesting, and shmittah in Israeli soil outside of Israel...wow, I'd love to talk about that one!

BeershevaBubby

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 3:47 am

breslov wrote:

And as for if they were able to make a device that with that, you could actually touch the moon with your bare hands... well, when they make that device, we'll discuss the reprecussions.

We were actually discussing last Shabbat about a hypothetical Mars colony. The end result was we decided that unless they actually teraformed the planet, Jews wouldn't be able to live on Mars because of issues with Mikvah and Sukkah.

Yeah, I'm a geek, with a geek husband and geeky friends...

Seraph

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 3:57 am

HindaRochel wrote:

But it is interesting, and shmittah in Israeli soil outside of Israel...wow, I'd love to talk about that one!

Btw, that idea was based on the fact that... halachically (I just read in a sefer) that if someone brings a pot of dirt from chutz laaretz and has it in a pot outside during shmitta, he'd be allowed to plant in it, but if it were a pot of e'y dirt outside during shmitta, he wouldnt.
(Don't remember details, but it was something similar.)

Kmelion, I'm also a nerd with a nerd husband... We also have weird hypothetical discussions...

Ruchel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 8:48 am

Quote:

halachically, touching through something else is not considered the same status as touching not through something else.

yup. I have read an article saying women who give birth could hold dh's hand if he is wearing gloves. lol

HindaRochel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 9:01 am

That would be weird Ruchel....and that is something I've never heard of ...quite interesting.

Ruchel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 9:18 am

Quote:

Interesting stuff I just read:

Quote:
Vous trouverez l'article sur le site de Pouah (http://www.puah.org.il/), dans la partie "Pinat Haaktoualia", puis "Bdikot Beherayon" et enfin "Histaknout bibdika letsoreh harhaat hayoledet". Il s'agit de questions-réponses avec le Rav Shlomo Dikhovski.
Le texte est le suivant :
ד"ר דניאל מלאך: מה שונה מגע יד הבעל, שהרב מציע להחליף אותו ביד של אשה אחרת אך לא מתיר לבעל ליגוע באשתו, מחילול השבת של רופא כדי להגיע ליולדת שרוצה דווקא אותו, שהרב התיר?
תשובה: 'הכל תלוי בטיב המילוי', ואם בעיני אשה זו אין תחליף ורק ידו של בעלה תרגיע אותה – באמת מותר; הבעל אולי לא רופא מיילד - אבל הוא קרוב להיות במעמד של רופא מרדים… אולם לכתחילה ראוי להשתדל להרגיע אותה בלי לעבור על איסור, כמו האשה שהריחה מאכל ביו"כ שלוחשים לה באוזנה ומנסים להרגיע אותה לפני שמביאים לה את האוכל האסור. אך כאמור, אם הבעל הוא כרופא לענין זה, ודווקא ידו חיונית כדי להרגיע את אשתו – מותר.

Translation: You will find the article on Puah's site, in "Pinat haaktoualia", then "Bdikot Beheryon" and finally "Histaknout bibdika letsoreh harhaat hayoledet". It deals with questions answered by R' Shlomo Dishovski.

Apparently, some rabbis (R' Dichovski and R' Ariel) authorize nidda touching during birth. The French rabbi (Elie Khan) said he agreed with this .

http://imamother.com/forum/vie.....7c84f

TzenaRena

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 10:27 am

Ruchel wrote:

Quote:

halachically, touching through something else is not considered the same status as touching not through something else.

yup. I have read an article saying women who give birth could hold dh's hand if he is wearing gloves. lol

This is mentioned in the shailoh posed to Dayan Weiss (Minchas Yitzchok), where a Rav asked about a woman who was mentally distraught, and a different psak was referred to, both circumstances discussed were completely out of the ordinary, more of an emergency situation, I don't remember what the psak was, but this is NOT a l'chatchilla psak for any birthing woman! And no, normal births do not go into that category. The Minchas Yitzchok clearly says that.

Ruchel

Fri, Jul 27 2007, 10:47 am

TzenaRena wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

Quote:

halachically, touching through something else is not considered the same status as touching not through something else.

yup. I have read an article saying women who give birth could hold dh's hand if he is wearing gloves. lol

Interesting!! The French rabbi definitely presented it as a psak for normal birth, saying that basically you have to do everything a birthing mother really needs, including this. weird..

Mrs.Norris

Fri, Aug 03 2007, 12:13 pm

I am actually gob smacked ... I can not believe what I have just read. Getting quite scared about the state of society now ...

You are arguing that lice don't come from eggs? Why don't you look and see for yourself! Or do you think all those people who say that they come from eggs are evil and trying to trick you? LOL

You think the Mediterranean is the largest ocean? get out a map of the world, oh but maybe those terrible geographers were tricking everyone so made every map in the world inaccurate.

All these things are not part of the 13 principles of faith!! You do not HAVE to believe them, in fact I would say it is only you and a few other people in need of an education who believe it.
Sorry for being so blunt but I don't see why I should bother trying to be nice to people who are telling anyone who disagrees that they do not believe in the Torah which in my opinion is the biggest insult of them all.

TzenaRena

Sun, Aug 05 2007, 6:27 am

In circumstances where Chazal said something, that is contradicted by science, we remain with the premise that what Chazal, Torah sheb'al peh is true, and that even if we don't understand it fully, eventually we will be able to see how that it so. This may take a while, but it should not disturb us from accepting what Chazal says as true.

For example, with the spontaneous generation thing, many "proofs" that science presents are observations, that support their hypotheses, but the hypothesis still remain theoretical, because the observations are not actual proofs, and even when it appears to support the hypotheses, are not proveable as such.

Only as an illustration, (and I'll grant it's an imperfect one because it's my own example): You see someone hugging someone else. You would assume that person A loves person B because he is hugging him. However, person A may be checking person B for hidden jewels, like Lavan hugged Yaakov.

Or he may be wrestling him. Or he may be an actor, acting out a role.

The fact that A hugged B is not a proof that A loves B. All we can validly say is that we observed A hugging B. Even if we heard A declare that he loves B aloud, would still not be a "proof", because he could be thinking something completely opposite in his mind, and we would have no way to know or prove.

BeershevaBubby

Sun, Aug 05 2007, 6:45 am

TzenaRena wrote:

Using your illustration and your logic... please explain how observing a louse hatch from an egg is something other than a louse hatching from an egg.

Page 3 of 22

Previous 1 2 3 4 20 21 22 Next