Anything about JUDAISM
Anything about JUDAISM
profile | register | search

This is an archived site, for new discussion please see
Forums | | Post Reply Send Topic To a Friend
Author Topic
bubbles Posted - 22 August 2003 0:19
I know this question is probably going to sound ignorant to some people, but I am still in the process of learning about religious Judaism. Anyway, I know that Judaism does not support the theory of evolution, and neither do I. I also know that no transitional fossils that would have to exist in order for evolution to be true have ever been found. However, what about the fossils of early, "ape-like" humans? Homo habilus, homo erectus, etc? These fossils seem to clearly prove, and show, humans evolving from ape-like ancestors. And what does Judaism say in order to explain the age of the dinosaurs? I would really be interested in your response.
MODERATOR Posted - 22 August 2003 0:48
First, even if semi-humanoid life forms existed, it does not prove in the slightest that they were our ancestors. Perhaps they existed, as ape-like mamals, with more similarity to humans that the apes with which we are familiar. Fine. But what says they are our ancestors? Nothing at all.

Second, there is no evidence at all that those fossils are indeed of ape-humans. They dont even have proof that those creatures even existed. Any shred of a fossil that they find that gives them an opportunity to speculate about what kind of creature the fossil came from, they latch on to and built mountains out of molehills, and produce theories about what the creature was. This happens constantly:

Zinjanthropus Man, a humanoid race touted as being 600,000 years old based on "fossil evidence", was not even based on one body, or even an entire skull. They found one skull with the lower jaw missing. The skull was not found in one peice - it consisted of 400 fragments, found distributed among tons of debris, and put together at the discretion of the people who stand to gain the most by such a "discovery". The entire episode was totally biased, and they still have zero evidence that this creature was anything but human, with, at most a perhaps slightly deformed skull.

And how do they know how old this creature was? Because of the fossils that they found in the same strata with his fossils. ANd how do ythey know how old those animals were? Because of the theory of evolution which says that such animals should be that old. There is no evidence of anythign here - just theory and wishful thinking.

Every such "discovery" has had opposing scienists who declare them to be nothing. Java and Peking Man were declared by the prominent evolutionist Weidenrech to be plain humans, nothing more and nothing less.
E.E. Stanford, ("Man and the Living World") declared that Nenderthal Man lives with us today. IN "The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution". W.E. LeGros Clark declares that Neanderthal Man existed at the same time with regular human beings.

All these types of ape-humans are nothing but apes or humans that can be seen among us today. At hte London meeitng of the Congress of Zoology it was revealed that the nuseum exhibits of Neanderthal Man walking hunched over like an ape was a regular human who had arthritis. Only 13 samples of Neanderthal Man have ever been found - ever! - every one of them incomplete, yet the evolutionists built on them an entire mythical "race" of ape-men.

Procunsul Africanus, touted as the ancestor of "both apes and humans" was declared at that same convention to be nothign but a plain ape.

Java Man was represented by a skull cap, a left femur, a small peice of a jaw, and 3 teeth. Nothign more. And they were found not together but about 50 feet apart, over the span of a year, among many many other bones and devris. Based on this "evidence" they created an entire era in history. Laterthey found more skulls, more bones etc. Everythgin was the same as human remains except forthe teeth, and evolutionists claim that those teeth are the teeth of a plain monkey.

Peking Man has nothing that cannot be found in normal men. Cro-Magnon Man was, evolutionists admit "fully developed" and intelligent as any man today. He was about 6 feet tall, with a regular forehead, full chin and large brain. he is no more proof of evolution than we are.

But do the math: Even according to the most stubborn and irraitonal evolutionists, for every single fossil of normal humans and apes that they find, they should be finding billions upon billions of in-between fossils. The steps between ape and human included tons of in-between creatures, and mutant cxreatures who were not fit for survival. Yet no such fossils have been found. Even the little that they desperately squirm to concoct is pitifully useless compared to what should exist out there. Yet fossils of regular men and apes exist in abundance - in a bundance! - and only once in a blue moon do they even clima to find an in-between fossil. And incidently, the fossils of normal men are found in the same strata as those of the "ancient" and prehistoric men. Go figure.

The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution. Not that proof is needed - the entire idea is a baseless hteory, the only reason they cling to it is because they have nothign better to cling to, if they dont want to admit the obvious - that the world was created by G-d.

I would suggest, if you want this information in detail, to read Rabbi Avigdor Miller's SIng You Righteous and Awake My Glory.

eeesther Posted - 24 August 2003 2:48
But the "age" of fossils is established by carbon-dating which measures the amount of radiation present in the isotope?
MODERATOR Posted - 24 August 2003 2:56
Carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. (a)that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and (b) its rate of decay has always been constant.

Neither of those assumptions has been proven or clsoe to proven. And sicne the world was created in six days, who knows how the cosmic radiation in the atmoshphere was fluctuating then.

There is another issue that makes the carbon dating useless. WHen th e world was create, it already had an age. In other words, when Adam for instance was created, he was an adult, even though he was one day old; there were fully grown trees; the sun's light already reached the earth; an entire world existed, full-blown and OLD. How old was the world at the moment it was created? I dont know -- it doesnt say. But we do know that it didnt sdtart fomr scratch. And so lets say someone would chop down a tree 1 week after it was created and find maybe 50 rigns insude - would that prove that the tree wa 50 years old? Nope - it owuld only prove that when it was created it was created as an adult, 50 year old tree.

So even if dating would be accurate, it still doesnt prove that the world was not created 6,000 years ago - because when it was created, it already could have been thousands of years old.

bubbles Posted - 14 September 2003 2:02
Thanks Moderator-that helped a lot.
HZ Posted - 14 September 2003 18:34
Also, Rabbi Tatz metions some studies done that due carbon dating based on different assumptions. One that one of the types of carbons is decreasing, which it apperas to be. And two geometric time is decreasing (the earth is going slower and slower every year in atomic time). Both of these assumptions make more sense. He has a good tape on it. Actually i would recomend all his tapes... they are at
HZ Posted - 25 December 2003 17:21
The tapes are at Sorry about the mistake.
HZ Posted - 13 January 2004 18:54
613.ORG, ORG not COM. Sorry for the mistakes...
bubbles Posted - 16 January 2004 18:48
no problem. i'll definitely check it out.
HZ Posted - 18 January 2004 1:44
I believe its the Age of the Universe tape. But all his tapes are good.
RoundFlips Posted - 09 April 2004 0:07
I don't believe you can prove the validity of the Torah with the Torah itself. To say that the antibiblical theory of evolution goes against the Bible is absurd. I'm not saying that evolution is true, but I'm saying you can't use the Torah as your "fact." Furthermore, I think if you have a document that says one thing and hard evidence that says another it is very hard to say that the evidence is false because the document says so. It is no more conlcusive to side with the document than the "incomplete theory of evolution." It is like "The Treachery of Images." It was a painting of a pipe and above the pipe it said "This is not a pipe." Clearly one of them is wrong and one is right, but for all intents and puproses it IS a pipe (disregard the fact that its a painting) and for a statement to tell us otherwise is not sufficient.
MODERATOR Posted - 09 April 2004 0:12
I have no idea what you are asking. What you are quoting, and declaring absurd, has been stated by nobody. Are you sure you posted in the right forum?
HZ Posted - 09 April 2004 13:28
Round, the tape uses science to show its more plausble that the world is around the age the Jews say it is. The study was not done by Jews. It just uses more plausible assumptions.
Doweknow Posted - 15 April 2004 12:07
it seems that you have quite a large breadth of knowledge of secular subjects, you must have studied them quite extensively.
How can you say then that us studying secular subjects is a bad thing, when you yourself must have devoted a great deal of time to their study
MODERATOR Posted - 15 April 2004 12:31
"Kedei lehoros" - if you are in a position where you need to pasken on something, or "da ma lahashiv" - in order to know what to answer, you are permitted to learn or see whatever necessary. To get things in perspective, that includes shmutz and avodah zorah as well. If let's say a parent or Rebbe needs to know what their child or student is reading, they are allowed to examine it even if it may be something that they would chas vsholom never be caught dead looking at.

And even then it's worthwhile to "clear things" first. Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZTL went to Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL asking if it is permitted for him to learn the New Testament in order to disprove it. Rav Moshe said "for you it is permitted", which meant that the heter is not blanket.

There is no question that a doctor is allowed halachicly to perform medical procedures on women patients. But humans are humans and "lev yodeah maras nafsho" so it is certinaly not advisable - or even permitted - for everyone to go into that field. It is a mitzvah to save someone from a burning fire, but unskilled people are fools if they try. All they will accomplish is their own demise.

Doweknow Posted - 06 May 2004 13:07
So if you agree that certain people should learn secular subjects why are you advising everyone on this forum that they should not learn it, surely then before you make statements like the ones you are making you should get to know every person individually and speak to them in private not in a public forum.
Topic is 4 Pages Long:    1 2 3 4

Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.

Show All Forums | Post Reply