IC please clarify for us

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:01 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:18 pm
So the Torah treats it as real, and you think "science" is contradicting it? Just how does science do that?
The Torah is a text written by man.
It depends what you mean "written by." The stylus may have been in the hand of Moses: does that mean the words belonged only to Moses? That's not the orthodox Jewish view, for certain. When Moses brought Torah, he had not dictated or revealed it to himself, had he?

In any case, you're not answering the question: in what way is it your claim that Torah is "contradicted" by science?

God could not dictate anything, because He is not material.

A literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve contradicts science, what's unclear about that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:01 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 9:58 am
The Torah is a text written by man.
It depends what you mean "written by." The stylus may have been in the hand of Moses: does that mean the words belonged only to Moses? That's not the orthodox Jewish view, for certain. When Moses brought Torah, he had not dictated or revealed it to himself, had he?

In any case, you're not answering the question: in what way is it your claim that Torah is "contradicted" by science?
God could not dictate anything, because He is not material.
Torah is false, then? The Ten Commandments were not written by God, God did not speak to Abraham, Israel is not blessed...?

That would certainly not be the beliefs of Judaism. What religion are you?
A literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve contradicts science, what's unclear about that?
What's unclear is that it contradicts science in any way. Which particular "scientific" finding are you meaning?
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:01 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:01 pm
It depends what you mean "written by." The stylus may have been in the hand of Moses: does that mean the words belonged only to Moses? That's not the orthodox Jewish view, for certain. When Moses brought Torah, he had not dictated or revealed it to himself, had he?

In any case, you're not answering the question: in what way is it your claim that Torah is "contradicted" by science?
God could not dictate anything, because He is not material.
Torah is false, then? The Ten Commandments were not written by God, God did not speak to Abraham, Israel is not blessed...?

That would certainly not be the beliefs of Judaism. What religion are you?

The literal understanding of the Torah is false.
On how to correctly understand the Torah - Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed.

***What's unclear is that it contradicts science in any way.***
I don't see anything that doesn't contradict.
For example, what does not contradict science in the literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:01 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:49 pm
God could not dictate anything, because He is not material.
Torah is false, then? The Ten Commandments were not written by God, God did not speak to Abraham, Israel is not blessed...?

That would certainly not be the beliefs of Judaism. What religion are you?
The literal understanding of the Torah is false.
Oh. So then, ideologically, you're not a Jew...you're a "Maimonadesian."
***What's unclear is that it contradicts science in any way.***
I don't see anything that doesn't contradict.
For example, what does not contradict science in the literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve?
I'm waiting to see what you think it is that does. What alternate story about that are you thinking is more "scientific"? And what's the "scientific" data that convinces you of it?
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:45 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:21 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 3:01 pm
Torah is false, then? The Ten Commandments were not written by God, God did not speak to Abraham, Israel is not blessed...?

That would certainly not be the beliefs of Judaism. What religion are you?
The literal understanding of the Torah is false.
Oh. So then, ideologically, you're not a Jew...you're a "Maimonadesian."

The principles of faith of Maimonides are generally accepted and the most authoritative.
In general, there are no dogmas in Judaism, in Judaism there is more emphasis on observing the commandments, with freedom of philosophizing.
There are those who literally believe in the talking Serpent who spoke to Eve from the rib, and there are those who are more philosophical.

By the way, Ben-Gurion said, “I don’t go to synagogue, but my synagogue is Orthodox.”
I go to synagogue, and my synagogue is Orthodox, thank God.
And Ben-Gurion did not separate religion from the state, well done.
By the way, I published an article on the topic of faith in a religious publication that publishes central rabbis, I will give a link to this article here, but it is in Hebrew,
https://asif.co.il/wpfb-file/zhr-33-1-p ... CuTubIUNNw
This article also covers the topic of Darwin and other pressing issues for religious people.

***And what's the "scientific" data that convinces you of it?***
I have already cited generally accepted scientific data on human evolution above, citing Wikipedia, but you can refer to other encyclopedias.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 10:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:45 pm
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:21 pm
The literal understanding of the Torah is false.
Oh. So then, ideologically, you're not a Jew...you're a "Maimonadesian."
The principles of faith of Maimonides are generally accepted and the most authoritative.
What's not accepted, in the Jewish community at large, is a dismissive attitude to Torah.
***And what's the "scientific" data that convinces you of it?***
I have already cited generally accepted scientific data on human evolution above, citing Wikipedia, but you can refer to other encyclopedias.
Oh, Evolutionism. Well, in what way do you assume Evolutionism is supposed to disprove Torah? Be specific, please: what data do you mean?
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 12:16 am
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 10:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 5:45 pm
Oh. So then, ideologically, you're not a Jew...you're a "Maimonadesian."
The principles of faith of Maimonides are generally accepted and the most authoritative.
What's not accepted, in the Jewish community at large, is a dismissive attitude to Torah.
Certainly.
At the same time, a LITERAL understanding of the Torah, where it cannot be understood literally, is not acceptable in relation to the Torah.
I've already said this, let's not repeat it.

***Well, in what way do you assume Evolutionism is supposed to disprove Torah?***
Not the Torah, but the LITERAL understanding of the Torah.
Man evolved from the ancient ape, not out of "the dust of the ground", or rib.
I've already said this here, no point in repeating it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 4:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 12:16 am
Janoah wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2026 10:33 pm
The principles of faith of Maimonides are generally accepted and the most authoritative.
What's not accepted, in the Jewish community at large, is a dismissive attitude to Torah.
Certainly.
At the same time, a LITERAL understanding of the Torah, where it cannot be understood literally, is not acceptable in relation to the Torah.
Of course. But what makes you believe that "it cannot be understood literally" in this case? That's what I've been waiting to hear.
Man evolved from the ancient ape...
That's not scientific. Even the most ardent Evolutionists no longer believe in the "ape" theory. They now insist in the existence of some "common unknown primate or pre-primate ancestor," one some even suggest must have been as far back as in what they call "the primordial soup."

What is your evidence that they're right?
MikeNovack
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:17 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by MikeNovack »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:06 pm Even the most ardent Evolutionists no longer believe in the "ape" theory. They now insist in the existence of some "common unknown primate or pre-primate ancestor," one some even suggest must have been as far back as in what they call "the primordial soup."

What is your evidence that they're right?
B....S..... The last common ancestor between us, chimpanzees, and bonobos (about 7 million years ago) would still be classified as an ape. The separation between apes and monkeys much earlier.

The LCA is unknown only in the sense no fossils found. But we can determine things like how long ago and know that the first split was between our line and the chimp-bonobo line happened first, and that the latter two lines split a little later. You can look up how this sort of thing can be determined by genetic analysis.

We ARE "apes"

In fact, the reason that we are classified in our own genus Homo while Chimps ans bonobos classified as Pan is "politica" not "scientific". Not worth fixing because of the flack. Note that people in general get misled by appearances. We look significantly different than both chimpos and bonobos but are actually all closely related. Chimps look quite similar to bonobos but each is almost as different from each other as either is from us. On the other hand, most folks would think a red fox (V. volpes) looks like a gray fox (U. cinereoargenteus) except for fur color. But they are not very closely related, from different evolutionary lines.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

MikeNovack wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 10:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:06 pm Even the most ardent Evolutionists no longer believe in the "ape" theory. They now insist in the existence of some "common unknown primate or pre-primate ancestor," one some even suggest must have been as far back as in what they call "the primordial soup."

What is your evidence that they're right?
B....S.....
Well, you can give your evidence, too. Go ahead.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:06 pm
Janoah wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 4:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 12:16 am
What's not accepted, in the Jewish community at large, is a dismissive attitude to Torah.
Certainly.
At the same time, a LITERAL understanding of the Torah, where it cannot be understood literally, is not acceptable in relation to the Torah.
Of course. But what makes you believe that "it cannot be understood literally" in this case? That's what I've been waiting to hear.
A talking snake, can a serious person seriously believe this.
I have already cited generally accepted scientific data on human evolution above, citing Wikipedia, but you can refer to other encyclopedias.
Let's not repeat ourselves.


***Even the most ardent Evolutionists no longer believe in the "ape" theory.***
Why these "fictions"?
I have already cited generally accepted scientific data on human evolution above, citing Wikipedia, but you can refer to other encyclopedias.
"Homo sapiens is a distinct species of the hominid family of primates, which includes all the great apes. Over their evolutionary history, humans gradually developed traits such as bipedalism, dexterity, and complex language."
Let's not repeat the same thing.


*** What is your evidence that they're right?***
Besides scientific evidence, it is enough to look in the mirror to understand that people are the closest relatives of monkeys.
(although, those who mindlessly repeat are more like parrots)

This was clear long before Darwin.
Here is the view of the authoritative Jewish theologian and philosopher, Joseph Albo, who wrote this 400 years before Darwin,
"If we consider the various forms as they exist in their matters in the genesis of the lower forms of existing things, we find that they form an ascending series in regard to quality. The later form is superior to the prior one, as though the matter in receiving forms proceeds from imperfection to perfection, first receiving a lower form and then a higher form, and thus gradually ascending from an inferior grade of existence to a more perfect one. Thus matter first receives the forms of the elements, then it rises to the stage of minerals, to which the elements stand in the relation of matter. Then it attains to the grade of plants to which minerals bear the relation of matter. Then it ascends to the degree of animals, to which plants are related as matter, and then it rises to the grade of man, animals being in the position of matter. Here the process comes to an end. As in a given motion, every part of the motion is for the sake of the part which comes after, so it seems, in the genetic process of the lower forms of existence, that every part is for the sake of the part that comes after. And as a given motion ends up with a result which is the final cause of all the partial motions, so the genetic process rises gradually until it attains finally to the human form, where it stops, because this is the end of all the lower genetic processes.
That matter always moves from a less perfect to a more perfect form of existence, as the character of the composition rises in quality, is proved by the coral, which is intermediate, so to speak, between mineral and plant; by the marine sponge, which has only the sense of touch, and is intermediate as it were between plant and animal; and by the APE, which stands midway between the animal species and man, where the process stops."
JOSEPH ALBO "SEFER HA-IKKARIM: BOOK OF PRINCIPLES" (3,1)
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sefer_HaIkka ... .3?lang=en

Quite a picture of evolution "and by the Ape, which stands midway between the animal species and man."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 3:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:06 pm
Janoah wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2026 4:01 pm
Certainly.
At the same time, a LITERAL understanding of the Torah, where it cannot be understood literally, is not acceptable in relation to the Torah.
Of course. But what makes you believe that "it cannot be understood literally" in this case? That's what I've been waiting to hear.
A talking snake, can a serious person seriously believe this.
Let's say that part is metaphorical...a demonic being, rather than what you know as a snake. Why would that be possible for a God that created the whole universe to make possible?
I have already cited generally accepted scientific data on human evolution above
Anybody can click a page. But I'll warrant you it wasn't Wiki that convinced you. So what did?
This was clear long before Darwin.
Here is the view of the authoritative Jewish theologian and philosopher, Joseph Albo, who wrote this 400 years before Darwin,
"If we consider the various forms as they exist in their matters in the genesis of the lower forms of existing things, we find that they form an ascending series in regard to quality. The later form is superior to the prior one, as though the matter in receiving forms proceeds from imperfection to perfection, first receiving a lower form and then a higher form, and thus gradually ascending from an inferior grade of existence to a more perfect one. Thus matter first receives the forms of the elements, then it rises to the stage of minerals, to which the elements stand in the relation of matter. Then it attains to the grade of plants to which minerals bear the relation of matter. Then it ascends to the degree of animals, to which plants are related as matter, and then it rises to the grade of man, animals being in the position of matter. Here the process comes to an end. As in a given motion, every part of the motion is for the sake of the part which comes after, so it seems, in the genetic process of the lower forms of existence, that every part is for the sake of the part that comes after. And as a given motion ends up with a result which is the final cause of all the partial motions, so the genetic process rises gradually until it attains finally to the human form, where it stops, because this is the end of all the lower genetic processes.
What makes you think Albo's not a mere speculator? Anybody can write story, after all.
MikeNovack
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:17 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by MikeNovack »

Misunderstanding what Darwin did. Remember the title was The Origin of Species.

Many long before Darwin had argued for evolution but could not explain why we observed apparently discrete species rather than a smear of transitional forms. Why we could not "see" evolution in process.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 29316
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by Immanuel Can »

MikeNovack wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 5:38 pm Many long before Darwin had argued for evolution
Interesting, isn't it? Many had been trying to find a God-free explanation of the universe for a very long time...unsuccessfully. Darwin gave them their first remotely plausible attempt. It took them a long while, it seems.
...but could not explain why we observed apparently discrete species rather than a smear of transitional forms. Why we could not "see" evolution in process.
Darwin thought he was observing it. Remember his finches? But that was only intra-species modification, which we can observe; as you rightly point out, there's a huge difference between that an inter-species "evolution." It's one thing to say "A finch could have evolved a smaller beak," and to say "A finch could evolve to become a cat or a dolphin."

Intra-species modification is routine. Inter-species evolution has never been observed at all.
promethean75
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: IC please clarify for us

Post by promethean75 »

Mr. Novack, are you saying that this planet is run by a bunch of monkeys?
Post Reply