No Israel has no such records. Please provide specific references if you believe this,
The dominant view among Israelis is the scientific view of geologic history and the evolution of live.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
The dominant view among Israelis is the scientific view of geologic history and the evolution of live.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
This sounds like a misinterpretation of Jung where the ego must become individuate with the collective unconscious in order to develop a harmony and balance for greater connection with the world soul. This is all natural and remains natural and there is no man made state. We do not transcend nature.
ElishaElijah
Return
They kept the genealogy, how else could they trace lineage and prove the priesthood?
If they believe like you said they wouldn’t bother keeping the Feasts.
Claims of ancestry which can be determined by genetics is very different from genealogy. Yes some genealogy records have been kept going back maybe 2000 years, but as this reference on Jewish genealogy at some point the genealogy relies on oral tradition not actual records, because written records in Hebrew did not exist before 600 BCE. We have no documented genealogies going back to the Biblical ancestors of the Hebrews before this that name the ancestors., but yes still trace Jews to their general tribal ancestry and sometimes to a priesthood family,.
Although there are no genetic tests now to help trace one's lineage, researchers said that judging from the response to the findings on the priesthood, people would line up for any such test that did become available. Those who were most interested in the genetic test were the ones who had lost track of their cultural heritage. They want to find out what their roots are. Many Kohanim are in doubt about whether they are really Kohanim. Some rabbis point out that the study not only confirms the genetic links among the Kohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father-to-son transmission of the priesthood. "It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3400 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity.
Using the science of genetics of DNA tribal relationships of Hebrews and some families can be traced to Biblical times, are often used now to confirm the recorded genealogies can go back at least to the Canaanites when the Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe and to some degree earlier as the evolved population of home sapiens.. Since no specific records exits among Hebrews before 600 BCE Jewish ancestry can only be determined on the tribal level and cannot be traced to such figures as Moses and Abraham
The Biblical genealogies are too flawed to be helpful.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Galapagos finches caught in act of becoming new species
A population of finches on the Galapagos is discovered in the process of becoming a new species.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Speciation in real time
No.
PS: funny how you try and talk evolution "down" by calling it a religion. That is absolutely hilariously ironic.
True, genealogy records can show ancestry of even families back to about that time, and it matches genetic research that can trace the Hebrew tribe back much further, back to when the Hebrews were pastoral Canaanite tribes and even earlier back to a time when the Levant was settled by Neanderthals and homo sapien ancestor paleolithic tribes 180,000 years ago.
Last edited:
The vast amount of objective evidence has overwhelming support for the scientific scenario. None for the Biblical history described in th ePentateuch
The fossils ion the mountains are weathered out of geologic formations folded and faulted in the uplift of the mountains like limestone that extend deep in the earth. The limestone can only form in shallow seas over millions of years and it is impossible for limestone to form in a flood.
This is a terrible contorted made up view based on the intentional ignorance of science, We can observe the processes of nature based on the evidence how the rock formations form in the past in given environments, Your ignoring post #1.628. You dishonestly cite fossil observations you claim as evidence, which is evidence of a natural history millions and billions of years old.
The lake deposits in Japan clearly show annual sediment deposits over 100,000 years of history with a pollen layer in each thin layer exactly how we can observe form every year today in the sediment in the lake. Absolutely no evidence of a world or regional flood.
The problem with your claim that 'current' things and observations' cannot reflect what happened billions of years is that in reality by this standard nothing can be known beyond what we observe today. We cannot know anything of even recent history, because we were not there.. You dishonestly cite fossil evidence on the ground on mountains to justify a world or regional flood thousands of years ago without understand actually the physical evidence why the fossils are found there. By your standard nothing can be remotely confirmed based on what is recorded in the Pentateuch, which you claim based on a lack of consistent evidence of anything before 600 BCE when the Pentateuch was compiled..
The fact is we can determine what has happened in the past history, and geologic history based on the consistent incremental evidence going back tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of years ago. The incremental annual evidence of annual lake deposits observed and recorded annually in recent history can confirm a consistent climate history for 100,000 years with no observed catastrophic flood evidence,.
The ridiculous of not knowing the past was addressed in the next post "Was the Universe Created Five Minutes Ago?"
Last edited:
\his is in response to the absurd claim of what "we cannot know: in the past whether 5 minutes ago, 6000 years ago or 4 billion years ago.
reasonsforgod.org
Was the Universe Created Five Minutes Ago?
by Carson Weitnauer
Recently I heard someone object to the idea that we can know anything at all by saying, “How do you know the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago?”
I responded: “What in the world do you mean? Why think that?”
“Well, it could be true, and you can’t prove that it isn’t true.”
Perhaps you have heard someone make a similarly grandiose claim. There are many different kinds of unsupportable, evidence-free assertions that purport to discourage us from thinking we have knowledge of the world (“we are all brains in a vat,” and so forth).
Interestingly, the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis. As he put it:
First, when Christians argue this way, it looks equally absurd.
Imagine: “Christianity COULD be true, and since you can’t PROVE that it is false, why not believe it?”
That’s hardly convincing, right?
To say this is to make a huge assertion – that Christianity could be true.
But then there is an avoidance of any rational support for such an important idea.
Finally, the burden of proof is completely reversed: unless you can disprove my big idea, you should accept it. Wait a second – you came up with the idea, so you have the responsibility to explain why it is persuasive!
This kind of non-argument for Christianity rightly frustrates atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions. (A better approach: offer good reasons for the truth of Christianity).
So the Five Minute Hypothesis involves two critical mistakes: it is 1) a huge assertion without any evidence in its favor and 2) it involves unfairly reversing the burden of proof.
Second, the hypothesis is incapable of ever being proven.
Let’s say you offer some good evidence in favor of the Five Minute Hypothesis. (What kind of evidence, I have no idea!)
Now, presumably, I have to remember that evidence while I think about whether or not it is convincing. Let’s say it takes you a good hour to explain all the evidence to me and about one more hour for me to properly think about what you have said. At this point, two hours have passed since the creation of the world, “with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past.”
I would have the experience of two hours of genuine memories – and an apparent memory of a few decades that are entirely false and illusory. On balance, I would now have good reason to doubt that my memory is a very accurate source of knowledge! The vast majority of it is entirely false, though it appears to be real.
Given how unreliable my memory would appear to be, I would have to doubt that I had really heard good evidence for the Five Minute Hypothesis or ever really thought about the evidence seriously. All I have is my unreliable memory to go on!
Furthermore, though I don’t have any idea what kind of evidence could be given, I wonder if it would not be the kind of evidence which would be equally good at proving that the Five Minute Hypothesis is true of a universe that began at 12pm yesterday, or at 12pm a week ago, or at 12pm a year ago.
In other words, once you try to show that our memories are fundamentally flawed and wrong, it becomes quite difficult to remember whether or not you are right about that!
Third, it leads to unrealistic conversations.
If we accept the process of persuading each other here – giving unsupported hypothesis, reversing the burden of proof, doubting all of our memories – then we should be open to other, similar claims. For instance:
Fourth, if no claim is being made, then the hypothesis becomes irrelevant.
Another way this can be approached is to say:
Sometimes, you just have to reach disagreement…
In the worst case scenario, your friend might say, “No, I don’t think the world was created five minutes ago, but it could have been, and that would mean our beliefs about the past are false. I don’t know if it is true or false – I don’t even care if it is – because I don’t think we can know anything at all.”
You respond: “But that’s absurd and self-contradictory! You are claiming to know how to use English, what the ‘world’ is, the meaning of the phrase ‘five minutes’, and much more! How can you say you don’t know anything at all?”
They respond: “Because I can. I know it is absurd and I am okay with absurdity.”
Perhaps this sounds like an outlandish conversation, but I have had a number of conversations like this at Harvard.
In this situation, reaching disagreement is the best you can do. “Ok, you affirm absurdity, I seek to be reasonable, at least we know what we both believe.”
Questions for Reflection:
Was the Universe Created Five Minutes Ago? Resolving Doubts. Renewing Purpose. Reasons for God
Recently I heard someone object to the idea that we can know anything at all by saying, "How do you know the universe wasn't created five minutes ago?" I responded: "What in the world do you mean? Why think that?" "Well, it could be true, and you can't prove that…
reasonsforgod.org
Was the Universe Created Five Minutes Ago?
by Carson Weitnauer
Recently I heard someone object to the idea that we can know anything at all by saying, “How do you know the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago?”
I responded: “What in the world do you mean? Why think that?”
“Well, it could be true, and you can’t prove that it isn’t true.”
Perhaps you have heard someone make a similarly grandiose claim. There are many different kinds of unsupportable, evidence-free assertions that purport to discourage us from thinking we have knowledge of the world (“we are all brains in a vat,” and so forth).
Interestingly, the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis. As he put it:
In other words, Russell knew that this was not a hypothesis worthy of serious consideration. He brought it up only to clarify a point in his discussion of memory. But despite Russell’s restraint and logical clarity, apparently some people are now taking this idea seriously. And so it is appropriate to consider a thoughtful response.
First, when Christians argue this way, it looks equally absurd.
Imagine: “Christianity COULD be true, and since you can’t PROVE that it is false, why not believe it?”
That’s hardly convincing, right?
To say this is to make a huge assertion – that Christianity could be true.
But then there is an avoidance of any rational support for such an important idea.
Finally, the burden of proof is completely reversed: unless you can disprove my big idea, you should accept it. Wait a second – you came up with the idea, so you have the responsibility to explain why it is persuasive!
This kind of non-argument for Christianity rightly frustrates atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions. (A better approach: offer good reasons for the truth of Christianity).
So the Five Minute Hypothesis involves two critical mistakes: it is 1) a huge assertion without any evidence in its favor and 2) it involves unfairly reversing the burden of proof.
Second, the hypothesis is incapable of ever being proven.
Let’s say you offer some good evidence in favor of the Five Minute Hypothesis. (What kind of evidence, I have no idea!)
Now, presumably, I have to remember that evidence while I think about whether or not it is convincing. Let’s say it takes you a good hour to explain all the evidence to me and about one more hour for me to properly think about what you have said. At this point, two hours have passed since the creation of the world, “with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past.”
I would have the experience of two hours of genuine memories – and an apparent memory of a few decades that are entirely false and illusory. On balance, I would now have good reason to doubt that my memory is a very accurate source of knowledge! The vast majority of it is entirely false, though it appears to be real.
Given how unreliable my memory would appear to be, I would have to doubt that I had really heard good evidence for the Five Minute Hypothesis or ever really thought about the evidence seriously. All I have is my unreliable memory to go on!
Furthermore, though I don’t have any idea what kind of evidence could be given, I wonder if it would not be the kind of evidence which would be equally good at proving that the Five Minute Hypothesis is true of a universe that began at 12pm yesterday, or at 12pm a week ago, or at 12pm a year ago.
In other words, once you try to show that our memories are fundamentally flawed and wrong, it becomes quite difficult to remember whether or not you are right about that!
Third, it leads to unrealistic conversations.
If we accept the process of persuading each other here – giving unsupported hypothesis, reversing the burden of proof, doubting all of our memories – then we should be open to other, similar claims. For instance:
- Best I can remember, about two minutes ago, you promised to give me 30% of your net income, payable the 1st of every month. Remember that? I sure do.
- As I recall, just a minute ago you said your life dream was to spend your life pretending to be a statue of Elvis Presley. When do you plan to get started with that?
- If memory serves me well here, it COULD BE TRUE that you have promised to do my laundry every weekend. Since YOU CAN’T DISPROVE that you promised to do so, why not believe it is true?
Fourth, if no claim is being made, then the hypothesis becomes irrelevant.
Another way this can be approached is to say:
- “Oh, I’m not saying the world WAS created five minutes ago, just that it COULD have been.”
- “All that The Five Minute Hypothesis shows is that we COULD be wrong about everything.”
- “I’m just asking a question here, not making a point that has to be defended.”
Sometimes, you just have to reach disagreement…
In the worst case scenario, your friend might say, “No, I don’t think the world was created five minutes ago, but it could have been, and that would mean our beliefs about the past are false. I don’t know if it is true or false – I don’t even care if it is – because I don’t think we can know anything at all.”
You respond: “But that’s absurd and self-contradictory! You are claiming to know how to use English, what the ‘world’ is, the meaning of the phrase ‘five minutes’, and much more! How can you say you don’t know anything at all?”
They respond: “Because I can. I know it is absurd and I am okay with absurdity.”
Perhaps this sounds like an outlandish conversation, but I have had a number of conversations like this at Harvard.
In this situation, reaching disagreement is the best you can do. “Ok, you affirm absurdity, I seek to be reasonable, at least we know what we both believe.”
Questions for Reflection:
- How would you respond to The Five Minute Hypothesis or a similar scenario?
- How do you keep a conversation going when it reaches the place of self-acknowledged absurdity?
ElishaElijah
Return
Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Prove Old Earth?
The BioLogos Foundation published a popular-level article by old-earth geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth presenting arguments for an old earth.
answersresearchjournal.org
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Try a source which doesn't require their members to commit to a particular view before even starting their so-called "research" through a "statement of faith".Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Prove Old Earth?
The BioLogos Foundation published a popular-level article by old-earth geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth presenting arguments for an old earth.
"peer review" doesn't mean merely the contradictory religious beliefs of every quack you can find.
Peer review is a process not a group of people. A very scrutinized, rigorous and regulated process at that.
ElishaElijah
Return
Here’s a paper about how Darwin and evolutionary thinking can influence society and appears it did.
Gypsies Massacred, Part of Darwinian Eugenic Holocaust
Attempts to apply Darwinian eugenics were part of the Nazi effort to produce a superior race in Germany.
answersresearchjournal.org
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Even if it did, so what?Here’s a paper about how Darwin and evolutionary thinking can influence society and appears it did.
Gypsies Massacred, Part of Darwinian Eugenic Holocaust
Attempts to apply Darwinian eugenics were part of the Nazi effort to produce a superior race in Germany.
That doesn't make evolution any less accurate.
If the theory of gravity influenced people to throw others down the Eiffel Tower, would that have any bearing on how gravity works?
This is just a red herring at best.
Off course, not to mention, your source there is highly suspect. One shouldn't expect an ounce of valid science or intellectual honesty coming from propaganda channels that demand their members to commit on the answers before even asking the questions through a "statement of faith".
ElishaElijah
Return
@shunyadragon
Evolution theory has serious issues and makes a lot of unfounded scenarios:
answersresearchjournal.org
Evolution theory has serious issues and makes a lot of unfounded scenarios:
Heart Evolution: Four Types Are Unbridgeable
Not even plausible “just-so” stories are proposed to explain how one heart system evolved into a different system. Evolution is unable to explain their origin.
answersresearchjournal.org
This is a fundamentalist Christian unreliable source, because as usual it dishonestly misrepresents the sciences of evolution. This is especially egregious when it was Christians enthusiastically carrying out the orders of Hitler as they had done before Hitler was in power for thousands of years. The long history of Christian persecution and ethnic cleansing goes back long before the sciences of evolution, biology and genetics ever existed.Here’s a paper about how Darwin and evolutionary thinking can influence society and appears it did.
Gypsies Massacred, Part of Darwinian Eugenic Holocaust
Attempts to apply Darwinian eugenics were part of the Nazi effort to produce a superior race in Germany.
Roma/Gypsies, nomads newly arrived in Europe in the 1400s, endured expulsions, forcible removal of children, servitude in galleys or mines, death sentences for being Gypsy, and absolute slavery in the Balkans from the 16th century onward. Persecution stemmed from highest authorities in State and Church. Following the murder of 200,000 to 500,000 Roma in the Holocaust, persecution persists, especially in Central and Eastern Europe where Roma form up to 10% of population (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania). Discriminated against under communism, their plight has dramatically worsened since 1989. Endemic problems (low life expectancy, high illiteracy, dire poverty, poor housing) are now heightened by massive, disproportionate unemployment. Unprecedented persecution has been unleashed by new state nationalism and easing of censorship. Roma are the new scapegoat for post-Communist society's ills. The media commonly stigmatize Roma. Few countries have created laws to protect Roma rights. Some activists fear a potential genocide if conditions worsen.
You continue to dishonestly condemn the sciences of evolution with selective dishonest biased sources when it is by far dominantly Christians in European history that have persecuted, ethnically cleanse Jews, Gypsies and other minorities. Before Hitler whole Jewish villages were removed and the Jews exterminated in Europe for thousands of years,
Remember, Martin Luther provided the blueprint for Hitlers Holocaust.
The sciences of evolution only deal with the natural evolution of life in response to changing environments, and has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics, the goal of achieving a super race, or human artificial methods to emulate to achieve tribal purity. in the twentieth century they used not only the sciences of evolution, but also genetics and biology to justify the elimination of competing tribes These policies were also used against the Blacks and Native Americans up until recently
You have failed to respond to previous posts documenting your dishonest view toward evolution, and hand waving the over all responsibility of the Christians of Europe for thousands of years persecuting and ethnic cleansing of Jews and other ethnic people like Jews and non-believers referring to the references I cited to inspire their actions.
Actually the belief in a super race evolved from ancient tribal beliefs in the history of humanity as the Jews consider themselves in history as an exclusive pure or nearly pure ethnicity, especially concerning the priest family lineage, The history of the HEbrew tribe in the Torah describes the Hebrews efforts to exterminate competing tribes,
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it was science deniers, not peers, that attacked the work of the Christians at Biologos. They failed very early on. The referred to the long ago refuted "RATE Project" as evidence for their argument. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.Your scientific views are refuted by some of their peers.Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Prove Old Earth?
The BioLogos Foundation published a popular-level article by old-earth geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth presenting arguments for an old earth.
ElishaElijah
Return
They were
I don’t have a dishonest view of evolution because it can’t be supported by science as far as how we have the variety of species. The biblical account for Creation is what we see and the environment we live in. I posted 2 other papers supporting my view, there are many more
This is an accurate paper with sources which you probably didn’t read. You’re very dishonest.
I don’t have a dishonest view of evolution because it can’t be supported by science as far as how we have the variety of species. The biblical account for Creation is what we see and the environment we live in. I posted 2 other papers supporting my view, there are many more
Last edited:
You continual cite bad biased sources to dishonestly support your anti-science agenda based on the failed religious belief of Intelligent Design and irreducible complexity,@shunyadragon
Evolution theory has serious issues and makes a lot of unfounded scenarios:
Heart Evolution: Four Types Are Unbridgeable
Not even plausible “just-so” stories are proposed to explain how one heart system evolved into a different system. Evolution is unable to explain their origin.
The evolution of the heart has been extensively documented with many intermediates showing the gradual progression from very simple hearts to all the present diversity of types of hearts today in animals.
I prefer a reliable scientific explanation of the evolution of the heart, Read the whole article to understand the natural evolution of the different types of the heart from the simple to the complex.
The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective - PubMed
Convergence is the tendency of independent species to evolve similarly when subjected to the same environmental conditions. The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700-600 Mya and exhibits diverse physiological adaptations across the radiations of vertebrates (Subphylum...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective
Andrea Stephenson 1, Justin W Adams 2, Mauro Vaccarezza 1Abstract
Convergence is the tendency of independent species to evolve similarly when subjected to the same environmental conditions. The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700-600 Mya and exhibits diverse physiological adaptations across the radiations of vertebrates (Subphylum Vertebrata, Phylum Chordata). It has evolved from the early chordate circulatory system with a single layered tube in the tunicate (Subphylum Urchordata) or an amphioxus (Subphylum Cephalochordata), to a vertebrate circulatory system with a two-chambered heart made up of one atrium and one ventricle in gnathostome fish (Infraphylum Gnathostomata), to a system with a three-chambered heart made up of two atria which maybe partially divided or completely separated in amphibian tetrapods (Class Amphibia). Subsequent tetrapods, including crocodiles and alligators (Order Crocodylia, Subclass Crocodylomorpha, Class Reptilia), birds (Subclass Aves, Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia) evolved a four-chambered heart. The structure and function of the circulatory system of each individual holds a vital role which benefits each species specifically. The special characteristics of the four-chamber mammalian heart are highlighted by the peculiar structure of the myocardial muscle.
No your source is the dishonest advocate of Intelligent Design. I provided the real honest scientific source describing te natural evolution of the heart, I can present more.
ElishaElijah
Return
The paper I cited shows how faulty your interpretation and pipe dream scenario is