No one should believe in evolution!

[Shaul]

So in your understanding was there a 6 day poof and a flood
that covered the whole world, killing all but the ones on the boat, like, those things really happened?

That should cover whether you understand myth v facts.

First, that isn’t my understanding of the text. You created a straw man. Since that isn’t my understanding of the text you didn’t cover anything actually.

Also you changed the discussion. We were discussing facts versus truth, not myth versus facts.

 

[Shaul]

I have dealt with Bible thumpers or in your case Torah shakers for years. I have observed that behavior from all of them. I doubt if you would be the first not to fail in that manner. Almost all of them make the same claim s that you have, so not without evidence.

Resorting to name calling already? Am I bound by your experiences? I do find your hyperbole funny. “All of them”, really? Every last one of them? Since you have so much experience you should have no problem actually addressing my points rather than name calling. If can refute claims I’ve made just do it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

^ such an embarrassment ...

 

[Audie]

What I wrote is that they are distinct things. A scientific fact is simply something that is verifiable. Something that is true can certainly be independent being verifiable. Understand the difference? I know that many commonly use the words as synonyms. But they are wrong to do so, and scientifically imprecise. As I wrote some conflate the two.

Since this the first time I have seen use the word myth, I certainly am not sidestepping anything. You previously referred to creation stories. Now you are talking about it as a myth. Stories and myths are also two different things. Also please remember that myth is not a synonym for false nor wrong. Since that is correct I have no objection to someone referring to the Genesis account of creation as a myth.

A scientist is probably going to restrict himself to
saying "it is a FACT that this is my data".

"Verifiable" and "independently verifiable" is a distinction
w/o a difference.

Dont waste my time or yours with vocab lessons.
A myth can be accurate or fantasy.

Six day poof and flood is fantasy. That is a true
statement, a factual ststement, and, is verifiable
as well as independantly verifiable. If you can
figure a difference between them.

If your tribe wont allow you to think outside
its lines, so much the worse for you and the
tribe.

NYC is full of Jews, I do admire theit skill;
they could argur a turtle out of its shell.

Doesn't make them right.

Why did you sidestep the question? You know,
rhe one about real flood v one that is just a story?

You dont want to confirm what the Subducted One
said, surely?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If your tribe wont allow you to think outside
its lines, so much the worse for you and the
tribe.

NYC is full of Jews, I do admire theit skill;
they could argur a turtle out of its shell.

Doesn't make them right.

What antisemitic rot.

 

[Audie]

What antisemitic rot.

Oh? How so?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Judaism: Judaism and Evolution

"one should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds." - Maimonides

 

[Audie]

First, that isn’t my understanding of the text. You created a straw man. Since that isn’t my understanding of the text you didn’t cover anything actually.

Also you changed the discussion. We were discussing facts versus truth, not myth versus facts.

I JUST asked a question. No "srawman".
As for fallacies, you are equivocating on
myth and truth, and of course, there's the
falsehood about a strawman.

I suggest you go your way, I go mine.
Subzy may be interested, I' m not.

 

[Audie]

What antisemitic rot.

Ok, a drive-by cheap shot, as I thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Resorting to name calling already? Am I bound by your experiences? I do find your hyperbole funny. “All of them”, really? Every last one of them? Since you have so much experience you should have no problem actually addressing my points rather than name calling. If can refute claims I’ve made just do it.

Hardly, I was describing your actions. And my experience is a reasonable method to judge others making identical claims. Of course you could try to show that you are not spewing hot air here, but you probably realize that you will fail. Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You must first substantiate your claims, until you do you simply lose by default.

 

[gnostic]

Something which has not been proven or replicated and which, it seems, that a lot of evolutionary scientists try to steer away from.

You don’t understand either abiogenesis or evolution, Thaif.

Abiogenesis is more a very specific (and specialised) field of research in biochemistry.

Not everyone who study biochemistry are involved (study, research, work or any permutation of the three) in the origin of first life (thus abiogenesis).

Abiogenesis is a ongoing hypothesis that attempting to understand the origin of life, and they tried to form organic matters out of inorganic matters, through chemical reactions.

Most biochemistry students don’t touch abiogenesis or other origin of life hypotheses (eg abiogenesis from extraterrestrial sources).

These biochemistry students often go the medical research route when they leave universities, so abiogenesis subjects are irrelevant to most of them.

The reason why evolution differs from abiogenesis, is that evolution is study of biodiversity, as to why species change over time; it is not about the origin of first life.

Life have to already exist in order for evolution to be possible, because evolution is related to genetic inheritance, thus passing genetic traits, from parents to offspring. But evolution differed from ordinary genetics, because they don’t deal with individual families, but changes that occurred in populations.

And most people who do study biology, don’t study fossils.

Like abiogenesis, the study of fossils, or palaeontology, are specialised field, so not every biology students study palaeontology.

Zoologists and botanists, when they studied biology, they are most in areas of extant species and recently extinct ones, not ones that have been long extinct, like several million of years.

They would compare two or more extant species, to find out how they are related.

Here, at RF, I frequently like to use the brown bear and polar bear example. They are closely related; biologists, who specialised in family (Ursidae) and genus (Ursus), referred them to as “sister species”.

Meaning, the polar bears diverge from their southern cousins, the brown bears, at some point during the ice age, but they are still compatible enough to interbreed, whnen meet.

But the polar bears differ in many ways to the brown bears, both morphology and behaviour, and the differences are lot more than just outward appearance, eg colours of their furs.

All large bears can swim, but only polar bears are known to swim in the seas, and they are known to stay in water for days, and even weeks. Their feet are elongated, so they can paddle in water more efficiently (including swimming underwater) than other bears, but it also allow them to distribute their load, so they can walk on thin ice. And their claws give them better grips on ice.

The thickness and texture of the fur keep them warmer and it is better waterproof than that of the brown bears. Also keeping them warm is that they retained their body fat longer, which is another thing that insulated them from the cold, and that’s because their main diets are sea seals and sea lions, which have higher concentration of fat.

Lastly, brown bears hibernate during the cold winter, but polar bears don’t, because they are very active in the coldest times of the year.

That’s natural selection at work. The polar bears were once like their sister species, the brown bears, but they adapted tens of thousands of years, living in ice-sheet covered regions, but even when the ice sheets retreated during the warmer Holocene epoch, the polar bears have retreated to the polar regions, finding a niche where they are fitted.

Biologists who studied these two species, don’t need to research their more primitive ancestors.

 

[Shaul]

Hardly, I was describing your actions. And my experience is a reasonable method to judge others making identical claims. Of course you could try to show that you are not spewing hot air here, but you probably realize that you will fail. Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You must first substantiate your claims, until you do you simply lose by default.

No, you weren’t describing my actions. You didn’t refute any claim I made. You haven’t pointed out any claim of mine that I have failed to substantiate. You just spontaneously spouted some rant about “Bible thumpers”and “Torah shakers”[sic]. That is name calling as I said.

 

[Thaif]

You don’t understand either abiogenesis or evolution, Thaif.

Abiogenesis is more a very specific (and specialised) field of research in biochemistry.

Not everyone who study biochemistry are involved (study, research, work or any permutation of the three) in the origin of first life (thus abiogenesis).

Abiogenesis is a ongoing hypothesis that attempting to understand the origin of life, and they tried to form organic matters out of inorganic matters, through chemical reactions.

Most biochemistry students don’t touch abiogenesis or other origin of life hypotheses (eg abiogenesis from extraterrestrial sources).

These biochemistry students often go the medical research route when they leave universities, so abiogenesis subjects are irrelevant to most of them.

The reason why evolution differs from abiogenesis, is that evolution is study of biodiversity, as to why species change over time; it is not about the origin of first life.

Life have to already exist in order for evolution to be possible, because evolution is related to genetic inheritance, thus passing genetic traits, from parents to offspring. But evolution differed from ordinary genetics, because they don’t deal with individual families, but changes that occurred in populations.

And most people who do study biology, don’t study fossils.

Like abiogenesis, the study of fossils, or palaeontology, are specialised field, so not every biology students study palaeontology.

Zoologists and botanists, when they studied biology, they are most in areas of extant species and recently extinct ones, not ones that have been long extinct, like several million of years.

They would compare two or more extant species, to find out how they are related.

Here, at RF, I frequently like to use the brown bear and polar bear example. They are closely related; biologists, who specialised in family (Ursidae) and genus (Ursus), referred them to as “sister species”.

Meaning, the polar bears diverge from their southern cousins, the brown bears, at some point during the ice age, but they are still compatible enough to interbreed, whnen meet.

But the polar bears differ in many ways to the brown bears, both morphology and behaviour, and the differences are lot more than just outward appearance, eg colours of their furs.

All large bears can swim, but only polar bears are known to swim in the seas, and they are known to stay in water for days, and even weeks. Their feet are elongated, so they can paddle in water more efficiently (including swimming underwater) than other bears, but it also allow them to distribute their load, so they can walk on thin ice. And their claws give them better grips on ice.

The thickness and texture of the fur keep them warmer and it is better waterproof than that of the brown bears. Also keeping them warm is that they retained their body fat longer, which is another thing that insulated them from the cold, and that’s because their main diets are sea seals and sea lions, which have higher concentration of fat.

Lastly, brown bears hibernate during the cold winter, but polar bears don’t, because they are very active in the coldest times of the year.

That’s natural selection at work. The polar bears were once like their sister species, the brown bears, but they adapted tens of thousands of years, living in ice-sheet covered regions, but even when the ice sheets retreated during the warmer Holocene epoch, the polar bears have retreated to the polar regions, finding a niche where they are fitted.

Biologists who studied these two species, don’t need to research their more primitive ancestors.

Thanks for the lesson, I would like to think that I am making an effort to understand these types of science.
Please note that;

1) I try to keep abiogenesis separate from any topic around evolution even though I think that is a cop out because the implication of evolution is that life originated from a "primordial soup" or a "warm little pond" and moved on from there. I think, you cannot have evolution without the supposition that biogenesis is a thing. Strangely, to me, most posters seem to get really antsy when you try to combine the two things in one sentence.

2) Your bear discussion, while interesting, I think is about micro-evolution, mine was originally around abiogenesis so while I appreciate the effort which went into such a long post, I don't think it really is in the spirit of my original post. In fact, I would have to agree that micro-evolution is a thing so you really don't have to spend time convincing me of that.

On another note, I think that your comment "You don’t understand either abiogenesis or evolution" is a little unfair, I feel like I have, in fact, read an enormous amount of really trying and dull material on both of these subjects, and I mean real books as well as the online stuff that everyone quotes, and while I concede that I am not a scientist, I do take the care to brush up on any subject I am posting about. Admittedly, I may not always "get" what I am reading but as said, I am not a scientist.

 

[Audie]

If we get "antsy" about hearing yet again
about how abio is indispensible to TOE,
it is because, a) it is not, b) we've been through
this a thousand times.

But not with you, so forget the ten k times through,
but do realize it is not "strange" at all.

Perhaps this will help you see it.

ToE is exactly the same whether life began by
god-poof, or, abio.

ToE is about how / why life changes. Changes.

Similarly, aeronautical ennineering is precisely the
same no matter how the universe began.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you weren’t describing my actions. You didn’t refute any claim I made. You haven’t pointed out any claim of mine that I have failed to substantiate. You just spontaneously spouted some rant about “Bible thumpers”and “Torah shakers”[sic]. That is name calling as I said.

Of course I was describing your actions. You tried to claim a better understanding of the Torah as a excuse that it was correct. And since traditionally the Torah was a scroll or rather a series of scrolls one would shake them rather than thump them as one would thump a large book. Ergo you also misused the word "sic".

 

[ecco]

1) I try to keep abiogenesis separate from any topic around evolution even though I think that is a cop out because the implication of evolution is that life originated from a "primordial soup" or a "warm little pond" and moved on from there. I think, you cannot have evolution without the supposition that biogenesis is a thing. Strangely, to me, most posters seem to get really antsy when you try to combine the two things in one sentence.

I agree that without abiogenesis there can be no evolution. There, without getting antsy, I put both into one sentence.

Primordial soups and warm little ponds are just two places where science speculates "life" may have originated.

Evolution, specifically ToE, essentially states that "life" progressed from, at least, single celled entities to humans and mold and spiders. The problem is that there is no LINE that separates non-life from life. Scientifically, there is not even a single, all encompassing, definition of the word "life".

I look at it as a continuous evolution, of which ToE is only one part.

{Images of visible light spectrum will not post}
Here is a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#/media/File:Linear_visible_spectrum.svg

I see it as atoms being in the Green; one celled entities and humans being in the Orange.

We understand a lot about Cyan to Green. We understand a lot about the processes that occurred in the Orange. We do not, currently, understand the Yellow.

 

[Shaul]

Of course I was describing your actions. You tried to claim a better understanding of the Torah as a excuse that it was correct. And since traditionally the Torah was a scroll or rather a series of scrolls one would shake them rather than thump them as one would thump a large book. Ergo you also misused the word "sic".

Since I never claimed to a “better understanding of the Torah” you commit yet another error. What I said was, “Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account.” Having an advantage doesn’t mean I necessarily do have a better understanding. And that wouldn’t be “Torah shaking”. I wasn’t using quoting of Torah for any claims I have made. So, I was never “Torah shakin”[sic]. And, yes, you were name calling and without any cause.

 

[Audie]

Since I never claimed to a “better understanding of the Torah” you commit yet another error. What I said was, “Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account.” Having an advantage doesn’t mean I necessarily do have a better understanding. And that wouldn’t be “Torah shaking”. I wasn’t using quoting of Torah for any claims I have made. So, I was never “Torah shakin”[sic]. And, yes, you were name calling and without any cause.

Dont guess you ever just come clean and say if you
think there really was a 6 day poof and a world wide
flood, are you?

We've heard about your advantage, how about telling
us what it got you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since I never claimed to a “better understanding of the Torah” you commit yet another error. What I said was, “Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account.” Having an advantage doesn’t mean I necessarily do have a better understanding. And that wouldn’t be “Torah shaking”. I wasn’t using quoting of Torah for any claims I have made. So, I was never “Torah shakin”[sic]. And, yes, you were name calling and without any cause.

That amounts to the same thing and you have not been able to demonstrate this advantage one iota. Your inability to support your claims demonstrates that I was not without cause.

 

[Shaul]

Dont guess you ever just come clean and say if you
think there really was a 6 day poof and a world wide
flood, are you?

We've heard about your advantage, how about telling
us what it got you?

It isn’t real clear to me what you mean by a “6 day poof”. I assume it means (in what I think is a needlessly mocking way) a creation that takes place in six consecutive days. If so, I think alternate inpretarions of Genesis work better. I can elaborate on that more later. I am inclined to not interpret the Flood as worldview wide for reasons I could elaborate on, if you wish. The main reason centering on what the Hebrew word “eratz” means.

Here are some things I accept and or believe:
1) Torah is true.
2) The theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and within the mainstream of science.
3) Torah, including the Genesis (Beresheit) account, is subject to multiple interpretations.
4) Some interpretations of the Genesis account are in conflict with the theory of evolution but others are not in conflict with it.
5) Some conflicts between them are insurmountable, others not.

That should be enough to give you some idea of my perspective. One further thing which might preempt needless misunderstanding., I am agnostic with respect to sundry “day/age” theories regarding the creation account. Some are quite interesting, others are bubkes.[/QUOTE]