Picturesque ‘Fire Rainbow’ Appears Over South Carolina | Discovery Blog | Discovery
I have stated previously (http://rygb.blogspot.com/2006/07/noachs-rainbow.html) that the true קשת of the Mabul is much more likely something along these lines that the common rainbow. "את קשתי נתתי בענן".
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
חדשות - 'המפסידים בקרב על הרבנות עושים דין לעצמם'
חדשות - 'המפסידים בקרב על הרבנות עושים דין לעצמם'
Proud of my friend since kindergarten - and often chevrusa as well - Reb Duv!
Proud of my friend since kindergarten - and often chevrusa as well - Reb Duv!
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Mistakes in Tanach
An important Sha'agas Aryeh that was brought to my attention this evening:
וי"ל דעזרא העתיק דברי הימים מכמה ספרים שמצא כמו שכתבתי שם. מש(ום) ה(כי) יחוס הדורות אינן על הסדר; גם יש סתירות הרבה מניה וביה, ומד(ברי) ה(ימים) לס' עזרא, כי בספר א' מצא כן ובספר א' כן, וכמו שמצא כן העתיק
ספר גבורות ארי לבעל שאגת אריה, מלואים על מסכת יומא, עמ' 111 ד"ה תיובתא
ספר גבורות ארי לבעל שאגת אריה, מלואים על מסכת יומא, עמ' 111 ד"ה תיובתא
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Evolution
Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote an article about evolution here:
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192334/skeptical-about-evolution-and-not-because-of-religion
Professor Jerry Coyne wrote a response here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/rabbi-doubts-evolution-but-not-because-of-religion/
A brilliant and highly educated friend of mine responds to Coyne thus (Note: Make sure to read his further elaborations in the comments section!):
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192334/skeptical-about-evolution-and-not-because-of-religion
Professor Jerry Coyne wrote a response here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/rabbi-doubts-evolution-but-not-because-of-religion/
A brilliant and highly educated friend of mine responds to Coyne thus (Note: Make sure to read his further elaborations in the comments section!):
Coyne's fancy math tries to
obscure the question, but not very well. It is not true according to his
model that only 30 speciation events are necessary to form 1 billion
species. It is that 30 speciation times are necessary, in which on that
day, magically, every single species split, and then went dormant for
another 116 million years. Then speciation day 2 occurs, and every single
species splits, and goes dormant for another 116 million years. On
speciation day 30, by coincidence all existing 500 million species decided
to split on the very same day, and formed 1 billion new species. But
clearly, in real life, they would be happening at random times. If 500
million species split in 116 million years, that is 4 events per year. He
is playing fast and loose with the word "event".
It is an example of the type of
obfuscation and game playing with wildly impossible numbers in order to
make evolution and formation of life via random chance seem plausible. It
is as foolish as the Dawkins calculation which shows that we can get a
monkey to type Shakespeare (provided that we know the sentence in advance,
and help the monkey along by keeping his right guesses and throwing away
his wrong ones). This actually passes as a defense of evolution.
But in fact, evolution is
not
science at all and is totally irrelevant to science. It should be called
natural history. Science is about understanding the world right now and
manipulating the forces of nature to achieve some goal. Imagine you go
to
get your eyes checked for a glasses prescription, and get a frantic call
back from the doctor,
"Come right back! The prescription I gave you was based on the
assumption that you evolved from a monkey. But today, a new paper came
out that claims you evolved from a squirrel. I need to redo your vision
exam, immediately."
You know what? It totally doesn't matter. The human body is what it is,
and
we need to learn about its workings right now, which we don't know that
well. It's presumed past history is just fun and games.
Evolution is the art of
imagining backwards what happened billions of years ago, and then imagining
forwards how what may have happened billions of years ago may have affected
life billions of years later, i.e., today. Much better to study the science
of today, today, and leave the wild speculations to historians, as they are
almost completely useless for solving the real problems of today's
medicine. The problems we face today are the protein structure/function
problem, the understanding of the noncoding regions of the genome,
understanding complex gene regulatory networks, tailoring medicine to the
individual based on his unique biochemistry, etc. These actually involve
quantum mechanics and advanced math. Computer models must be devised, which
can be checked against the proteins of today for accuracy. They do not
involve wild pipe dreams of the distant past. Leave that to historians, and
let scientists do their work, which is curing diseases of today, based on
the physical laws of right now.
As Lord Ruthersford said,
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." Medicine is physics,
evolution is stamp collecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

