Comprehensive coverage

Assessment: Bill Nye won the public debate against the director of the Creation Museum (video)

How did Bill Nye beat Ken Hamm? Bill Nye was not supposed to win. He is not a scientist but an engineer, while Ken Hamm is a professional preacher who creates meaningless but catchy terms like "historical science versus contemporary science", and claims that the knowledge written in the Bible is science for everything.

Screenshot from the YouTube video of the confrontation between science commentator Bill Nye and Kentucky Creation Museum director Ken Hamm, February 5, 2014.
Screenshot from the YouTube video of the confrontation between science commentator Bill Nye and Kentucky Creation Museum director Ken Hamm, February 5, 2014.

Tonight there was a confrontation between the scientific educator Bill Nye who defended evolution and the creationist Ken Ham, who claims that all species were created as written in the Bible and that the earth is 6,000 years old. All the tickets for the nine hundred places in the Creation Museum were sold in two minutes.
Spectators from 29 states in the United States bought tickets.

Update 22:30 p.m. - about twenty hours after the confrontation, survey bThe Christian news site Christian Today
It shows that even creationists admit that Bill Nye won - at a rate of 93% versus 7% who believed that Ken Hamm won.

Many months were required just to formulate the question that will be presented in the confrontation: "Is creationism a valid model for the study of the origin of life in the modern scientific period?" (Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?)

In the United States, Time Magazine, the Washington Post and leading science websites wrote about the conflict. The Guardian in the UK broadcast the confrontation live on its website. The confrontation began at two in the morning, Israel time, lasted two hours and 45 minutes and was uploaded to YouTube at five in the morning, Israel time. Within three hours the number of viewers exceeded 700,000.

The full video of the confrontation

Bill Nye was not supposed to win. He is not a scientist but an engineer, while Ken Hamm is a professional preacher who creates meaningless but catchy terms like "historical science versus contemporary science", and claims that the knowledge written in the Bible is science for everything. Bill Nye arrived at Harry's Mouth, the Creation Museum, a stronghold of anti-science. Bill Nye initially provoked opposition and appeared as "biased" against Christianity after he claimed that creationism is inappropriate content as an education for children, in a YouTube video that gained 6 million views:

Many scientists - including believing Christians - argued that Shani is wrong in his participation in the conflict because in doing so he is giving kosher to creationism and presenting it as a competing theory with the theory of evolution, even though it is nothing more than a religious claim that cannot be proven and therefore is not admissible in scientific terms (not to mention the income for the creation museum from the sale of tickets and CDs In which the confrontation is commemorated, CDs published on the museum's website for $19.99 per unit even before the confrontation even took place...)

But Bill Nye is a kind of lovable uncle, who for years, in the nineties, gave millions of children scientific education on the TV show "Bill Nye the Science Guy". So even scientists find it difficult to be angry with the man who brought science into the homes of millions of Americans and who tried in this confrontation for the first time to reach audiences for whom the only scientific debate they are prepared for is between the Christian version, according to which the world is 6,000 years old, and the Jewish version, according to which the world is only 5,700 years old. Many of Nye's critics therefore contented themselves with giving advice.

Zach Coughlin, a student who gained national recognition for his activities for science education, argued that in view of the scientific ignorance that prevails in the southern states of the United States, it is appropriate to hold the confrontation, because in this way Ney will gain a foothold in the homes of devout Christians who are opposed to evolution who accept the biblical creation story and perhaps his words will reach the ears of A religious young man who had never heard of the meterp in the way Nye presents it:


Hemant Mehta, the owner of the blog "The Friendly Atheist", who opposed Nye's participation in the confrontation, also said: "If Nye is going to do it, here are some tips:"

Meta has brought cartoons on his blog that effectively sum up this pointless debate:

Directors of the National Center for Science Education in the United States Sit with Nye and provide him with advice.

On the Center's website, Josh Rosenau explains why Bill Nye won: Ken Hamm spoke fast, sometimes faster than you could understand. He used many presentations and gave the impression that he needed pyrotechnics to mask his insecurities. In contrast, Ney came armed with the experience of three decades of scientific education. He brought with him to the confrontation a stratified rock stone (sediment) that he found in the vicinity of the museum site just before the confrontation - with a fossil in it. The fossil rests on his lectern during the confrontation. It was impossible to ignore him. Nye explained how the rocks beneath the auditorium itself prove the fact of evolution. Nye explained that Ken Ham uses biblical exegesis rather than empirical, experiential testimony. "If Ken Ham's model of creation is correct, how is it that we see evidence of cosmic radiation, an echo of the Big Bang? The creation model could not predict this. Astronomy based on real science - yes," Nye explained.

A slide by Ken Hamm, director of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, trying to explain how creationists see the history of the universe and life. From the video of the confrontation between him and the science explainer Bill Nye, 5/2/3025.
A slide by Ken Hamm, director of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, trying to explain how creationists see the history of the universe and life. From the video of the confrontation between him and the science explainer Bill Nye, 5/2/3025.

But for the most part, Bill Nye used simple examples and avoided getting into complicated issues that arouse distrust among the general public, who lack scientific knowledge: "If the Earth is less than 6,000 years old," Nye asked, "how is it that there are glaciers in Antarctica that can be distinguished in 600,000 layers Ice variations indicating long periods of climate change? How is it that there are trees with more than 10,000 annual growth rings? How did these trees survive being drowned in the flood, which according to Hamm's version was so powerful that it carved the Grand Canyon? If the flood carved the Grand Canyon, and the flood was a global phenomenon, how come there aren't dozens of similar canyons on all the continents of the world?" Nye showed transitional fossils of skulls and asked: "If man was created separately from the rest of the species, there should have been no problem in defining a human skull and an ape skull. If so, how is it that even creationists differ in their opinions when they see the skull of a passing fossil and cannot state unequivocally whether it is the skull of a man or an ape?" This form, which cannot be clearly said to which species it belongs, is exactly the product you would expect from a gradual developmental process. Knockout.

And most importantly, while an atheistic message would have caused Christian listeners to close their ears to any attempt to impart scientific education, Nye explained that the mother and her religious interpretation is not acceptable to many Christians, and that the mother does not speak for Christians of any stream, and this is because there is no problem reconciling Christianity with science. And this is the most important message that the religious spectators of the conflict could receive, a message that might open a window among them to understand science and its importance.


More of the topic in Hayadan:

126 תגובות

  1. withering
    Congratulations for your patience and your genuine desire to answer my questions.
    Unlike Camila, I don't have much faith in the sincerity of your intentions to get real answers to your questions.
    Your attempt to simplify each question into a single rebuke sentence without defining your questions does not imply an understanding of the very definition of evolution or a genuine desire to ask questions.
    Instead of talking in short messages. Try to formulate real questions that, in your opinion, Camilla's answer did not provide an answer to.
    Try to ignore the slanderous comments and even more, try to avoid slandering back.
    If you are really responding in order to know, you should focus on the discussion itself.

  2. Hezi
    Your nomination for the Ignoble Award has been approved. With pomp and splendor you will get first place. Babarbanal offers you a suite and 24/7 care.

  3. H. Z.,
    A person who has never heard of evolution understands much more than you.
    It's better for you to shut up and go to some yeshiva. You're just making fun of me here.
    If they blocked you - it's only because of your stupidity.
    Get out of here already.

  4. Hazi (a noble man like you)
    "The necessity for a chicken to develop from an egg,
    Requires the egg to be already developed in order for it to form a chicken.
    Therefore the egg could not have developed with small random mutations..."
    What is the connection?
    The egg could develop (and indeed it did) while changing the mutations that make it up.
    The ancient 'chicken' was a dinosaur, and today it is a schnitzel...
    It was the change in mutations that caused the dinosaur to change into a chicken.
    And this indicates the change that the egg has undergone.
    The evolution of the egg, randomly and through mutations, created different versions of creatures.

  5. Chest:
    The theory of evolution does not claim that the egg evolved from the chicken (or the chicken from the egg) at random.
    The egg is part of the chicken.
    The egg develops inside the hen's body like any other part of the hen. (eye, gizzard, skin, bone).
    Because the egg is a part used for reproduction, it separates from the hen.
    The process that led to the existence of the chicken including all its parts is called "evolution".
    A cow (goat, sheep) also has eggs. The eggs are inside the body of the cow (goat, sheep). They are very small and are called eggs.
    The cow's eggs (eggs) are also part of the cow.

  6. H. Z.,
    Today we know about chemical substances that produce molecules that know how to replicate. I suggest you take an interest in the subject (the work of Paul Chaikin for example, or the work of Gerald Joyce).
    Therefore - your bewilderment shows a lack of understanding, and therefore also an unwillingness (or ability) to understand.

  7. withering,
    You have logical failures in understanding the problem...

    I don't think you understand the problem either...

    What does the size of the egg have to do with the problem of its development? A louse egg also needs to develop and mature before it forms a louse.
    She can't do "half development" to create a louse...

  8. Hezi,
    I understand very well the "problem" you think exists, but it only exists because you don't understand how evolution works, fact, if you understood how evolution works you would also automatically understand why there is no problem here. The simple explanation, even if you don't like it, is that the patent of an egg (i.e. a cell containing nutrients and the developing embryo covered by a shell) is a very old patent and predates the appearance of the first chicken by many millions of years, this is simple knowledge that relies on a huge variety of facts. By the way, the egg, the one with the shell, is simply a compilation of egg cells without a shell that preceded the egg with the shell and which can be found in many animals even today. For your information, the shell layer is secreted only near the laying of the egg, while before that the egg is almost identical in principle to egg cells that do not include a shell. So the answer to what came before what: the chicken or the egg is simple and completely clear - the egg came before the chicken.

    The thing that many people who don't understand evolution have a hard time understanding is when the first chicken (or for that matter any differentiated organism) appeared. There is usually a difficulty in pinpointing this moment for two reasons, one is technical - the lack of perfect documentation of the entire complete history of that species, and the other is philosophical due to the difficulty in pinpointing when one thing becomes another thing when the transition is gradual, a problem known as the stacking paradox ( and it arises from the problem of the ambiguity of the language and not because of a real problem. Take for example a color scale that goes gradually, in small steps as you wish, from black to white found in the scale staff. You know that on one side the color is black and you also know that on the other side the color is not black but another color that is completely different from it, and if we put the scale on a timeline then you can also say that one color "evolved" gradually with small changes from the other color. Now, if we ask when the white color first appeared we will find that we have difficulty answering when the exact moment occurred. Note that this difficulty in no way impairs our ability to distinguish perfectly between a white color and a black color, we will all agree without any problem that these are two different colors. On the other hand, if we have an agreed definition of what the color white is, say according to the level of brightness or the degree of absorption/reflection of radiation, we may be able to put our finger on the moment when the color white first appeared. Fortunately, the mutations are usually discrete, so there are cases where it is possible to identify exactly when a certain event occurred that was preceded by one type of event and followed by a completely different event, such as the emergence of the new feature in bacteria to break down sugar molecules or antibiotics that all previous generations could not break down. In the case of the chicken it is more difficult to say exactly when and after several changes this particular bird will no longer be called a chicken. Take for example an animal such as a poodle or doberman whose history is more familiar and which we know evolved from a canine ancestor that did not look like a poodle or doberman at all, just as all dogs gradually evolved from a wolf-like ancestor. Even if we have difficulty pinpointing the moment when the first poodle appeared, we have no doubt that at both ends of the process there was something wolf-like at one end and something we would all agree was a poodle at the other end. If we agree on well-defined criteria that can be measured and quantified, even if they are arbitrary, we can probably say when that first poodle born to non-poodle parents appeared. The important thing in all of this, and why there is no problem, is that the documentation, despite its incompleteness, clearly shows us the instances that we would all agree are different from each other (wolf-like vs. poodle-like) including intermediate instances that require us to conclude that one evolved from the other, so it's not really that important In exactly what generation did that show that most of us would agree is called Chicken first appear. I intentionally wrote most of us because there are breeds of chickens (or dogs or other animals) that there will be quite a few people who will not even think that it is the same species, even though the facts show that the breeds are crossed on an ongoing basis and fertile offspring are created. They just look too different in their appearance.

    I tried to explain as simply as I could, since I've already seen some of your comments here and it's clear that your understanding of science in general and evolution in particular is lacking (and this is said very gently). On the other hand, I will have zero tolerance for inciting the discussion to other topics and especially not to more arguments that come from the madrasah of creationists or other ignorant religious people. If you think you know there are other "problems" with evolution, I suggest you realize that you simply don't know enough yet to know anything about this subject. You are welcome to choose not to stay in the pit you are stuck in.

  9. Why not? All animals develop from an egg (including mammals, fish, reptiles, and even insects - the chicken and birds in general are no exception. The only question is how big it is and where it develops next. Size is a definite factor that a simple mutation can cause, and don't forget that this is half a billion years of evolution And hundreds of thousands of different species if not more.
    No one closes old comments, but you have to scroll backwards. When you have a website that constantly complains to you that the pages load slowly, you will make every effort to make them load quickly, even if it takes Hazi another minute to find his previous nonsense response.

  10. It amazes me that there are commenters here who still don't understand the problem...

    The necessity for a chicken to develop from an egg,
    Requires the egg to be already developed in order for it to form a chicken.
    Therefore the egg could not have evolved with small random mutations...

  11. Since they still haven't managed to block me here (despite great efforts),
    They close the previous comments, so that it is not possible to follow me
    The sequence of responses
    (on the grounds of old responses.... this is our science...)

  12. incidentally,

    There was such a panicked reaction,
    who sent me to all the doctors in the world for treatment...

    The main thing is that I won't be here...

  13. outrigger
    I've never heard of a watch containing DNA. Therefore, I have no way of understanding what the question is.

    But - I will ask you a simpler question. Let's say you find a paper clip and a manufacturing species that looks like a jellyfish on a distant planet. What more will surprise you?

  14. Hezi,
    Why do you insist it's at the same time?
    The reptiles or fish developed eggs, the dinosaurs evolved from the reptiles and the birds evolved from the dinosaurs. Voila, we got a chicken with eggs.
    This is a simplistic but possible explanation. Why do you keep asking such a simple thing?

  15. Since the article continues to star at the top of the site,
    I will try to get an answer here once again for those who believe in Darwin:

    How could both the egg and the chicken have evolved at the same time at random?
    In small mutations?

    (explanation, not a reference to websites)...

  16. Nissim Cohen
    From your name I learned that you are of the seed of the priests. If the Temple were built today, you would certainly not be officiating in the Holy of Holies. The angels on the ark of the covenant with one spread of wings would send a signal to the camp of the lepers.

  17. Nissim Cohen
    To understand the depth of the verse, we can also talk about other masterpieces from antiquity such as the Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer which were written 800 years BC, the constitution written by Solon for Athens in the 6th century BC, the royal book written by the prophet Shmuel who was the mentor of King Saul and mother in law Heshka, please read the laws of Hammurabi written in the 18th century BC. Don't turn other peoples creations into trampled ascopa. Those who composed these works were a little smarter than you. You claim that "starting conditions are needed at a much higher level, in order to understand the depth of one verse of the Torah", have you reached the limit of these starting conditions? If so, then you can say Athalta
    Degaula". You will surely be the donkey of Messiah.

  18. Good miracles, about a kangaroo fossil. Note that you claim that a kangaroo fossil in Israel would contradict what we know about evolution. But will not contradict evolution itself. In that case, the specific history of the kangaroo will simply be changed. As I said - no fossil can contradict evolution. and hence non-scientific.

    Regarding the clock containing DNA. Suppose for that matter that we found such a clock on another planet. Do you think such a watch is proof of design or not? This is a very simple question with a simple answer.

  19. Nissim Cohen
    You cannot assume that the Torah is true in order to show that it is true.
    Especially, when we know for sure that already in the first verse there are errors...

  20. Under the fourth human
    You are rude, and you do not deserve to be a party to an argument on any subject.
    Neither the conditions, nor the first, nor the last, went down to the depth of the Holy Torah, starting conditions are needed at a much higher level, in order to understand the depth of a single verse in the Torah, which was spoken by the mouth of God. Expect this because when the Redeemer comes, in whose coming we believe, the Torah will be completely different from what the contemporaries understood the scripture.
    And in that you won, I express no further opinion.

  21. The world was created older in its age and development as stated in the Gemara, and just as man was created at the age of 20, so are the mature trees, while the changes in the glaciers were created precisely during the flood when the world warmed up and then froze again in different forms and at different intervals, which is clear that even if there is doubt that there is a continuation after life it is worth making an effort to survive it properly

  22. withering
    It is not at all clear to me what is meant by a watch with DNA. It seems to me that it is a combination of Paley's clock with the idea of ​​a replicating robot.
    Those who don't want to understand will never understand...

  23. Miracles,
    You can give him as much relief as you want. I have had many discussions in my life with people who had difficulty understanding something, sometimes something fundamental. After the long and tiresome history of the discussions of exhaustion that also included lies (such as a reference to an article that actually claims the opposite of what the same troll said was claimed there) that were brought up more than once even after it was made clear that it was a lie. Does it really matter to you if that person is chronically difficult to understand both about what is said in the articles and about fairly simple logical fallacies in his arguments, or if he repeats them viciously? The result is still the same. Here's a challenge for you if you think it's a lack of understanding or challenges worth considering, I'd love to see if you could explain so that troll would understand what the problem is with the clock argument that contains DNA (I'll assume you understand the problems with this argument). If you succeed in getting that person to understand, if only that, why that argument about its derivatives is completely wrong, that is, he will know how to explain it himself and also stop using any version that recycles these failures, I will be convinced that there will be a solution even for cases that seem lost to me. I hope the challenge is not too big for you 🙂

  24. Hahahaha, it's kind of funny to see two brats grappling here 🙂

    Thutmose IV, what did he say that made you so angry?

  25. Nissim Cohen
    They say about Rabbi Akiva that he is the only one who entered Paradise and was not damaged in his soul, while you did not take a step into Paradise
    Your soul is corrupted. Even the Exorcist couldn't get her to the top of you. too late.

  26. withering
    Maybe you think he's a troll just because he doesn't understand?
    I don't think every believer is a troll, maybe he's just …..hmmmmm ….. shall we call it – challenged?

  27. Miracles,
    I would appreciate it if you would consider stopping answering this troll, who every time recycles arguments like that, especially the one that includes a replicating robot or a watch that contains DNA, etc., an argument that is idiotic and contains a logical fallacy (and it was explained to the same troll in the past in detail why). The troll has already received attention here above and beyond what he deserves and maybe you should consider if there is any point in continuing to feed him. I think most readers will only benefit from this. Alternatively, if you feel that you must continue, I will suggest what I did in the past, which is to condition continued reference by stating that he understands the fallacies in the argument of the replicating robot / a clock that contains DNA, etc. and that he will stop using it. As long as he does not acknowledge these failures, he cannot be expected to make any contribution in any matter, so it is a shame to waste your time and that of the other participants and readers. It is important to correct flaws in the participants' arguments but it is simply pointless when the arguer repeats the same fallacy dozens of times. Trolls deserve condemnation and the best condemnation in this case is a lack of consideration. for your consideration.

  28. Nissim Cohen
    Maimonides, Saadia Gaon, Yohanan ben Zakhai, King Solomon and the Rabbi would be ashamed of you. At the Nahrada or Pombadita yeshiva you would be considered an assignee. By the way, Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna had extensive knowledge of astronomy and I am more than convinced that he would have had a heart attack if he had heard you.

  29. Outrigger
    Regarding evolution. The eye did evolve about 40 times. In addition, there are, for example, in Australia birds that look just like crows but are not close at all. For example, there are two unrelated types of electric eel.
    But that has nothing to do with my claim!! I argue that if they find kangaroos in our area it contradicts what we know about evolution. According to your belief, there were kangaroos in Noah's Ark, meaning there should be their remains here…..

  30. Outrigger
    Let's finish with the trees. There are certainly species of trees that add several rings a year. We know what these species are. This does not contradict the fact that there are very old trees that we know their age.

  31. Oops - sight = lion.

    By the way, as far as I know, trees have been found in which a number of rings are added every year. So it is definitely possible that there are no trees whose age exceeds 5-6 thousand years.

  32. Well, miracles. Let's continue.

    You claim that an evidence fossil in Israel will not disprove evolution, but a kangaroo fossil in Israel actually does. You will be surprised to hear but no. The example with the evidence illustrates that the mere fact that we did not find lion fossils in Israel does not mean that they did not exist. So why do you think kangaroos didn't exist outside of Australia? More than that, there is a certain type of monkey that, according to evolution, crossed an entire ocean on a raft and reached the other side. That is, if a kangaroo fossil is found in Israel, evolutionists will claim that it crossed an entire ocean and arrived in Israel. That is, evolution is not disprovable. Just as I claimed. And contrary to your claim.

    "Finding a marsupial in Europe means that we have a parallel development of 2 classes on identity, something that is contrary to our understanding of evolution."-

    Not accurate. Complex organs according to evolution have developed simultaneously dozens of times. The eye, for example, developed at the same time between 40-60 times! So the above claim does not hold water.

    "In engineering, a good design is a simple design, with a minimum of parts," -

    quite agree. Effective planning is the ratio between the number of parts and the optimality of the function. Are you, as an intelligent agent, able to create a robot that performs human functions with fewer parts than the human itself? I guess your answer is "no".

    And another question, do you think a clock containing DNA is not proof of design?

  33. Nissim Cohen
    Please, don't tell anyone else what his knowledge is, what he's studied and what he does for a living, okay?
    Investigating the past does not belong to philosophy, but to science. There is a wonderful tool for studying the past called dendrochronology, dating by tree rings. This tool is more accurate than 12000 years ago. Very accurate!
    I will not go any further on this subject, because it is already 6000 beyond what you believe.
    Therefore, factually, you are saying things that are not true.

    I would love to hear proof of God's existence

  34. To the miracles and life of a balm and to all those who are bored on a holy Sabbath.
    Although you studied and have a degree in exact sciences, you lack experience and knowledge in practical research. There is no true researcher who will sign that he will edit a function when the measurements are sampled over a period of decades, and the function is supposed to give information thousands of years back. Such an interpretation does not belong to the field of exact science, but to the field of philosophy. Furthermore, I have already expressed my opinion that the world is older than 6000 years according to the scriptures in the Holy Torah that we received at Mount Sinai. But only man was created about 6000 thousand years ago. And there is no researcher or scientist who can refute data except, in the field of exact science, but in the field of philosophy. And if you do not distinguish between exact science and science based on assumptions and hypotheses, I can teach you if you want, and also scientifically prove the existence of the concept of "God" who created man, and the concept of "nothing" who created something from nothing. And man is accessible only to the positive part of creation and not to the negative part, and in any case all creation is nothing at all and nothing at all.

  35. Eyal, the truth is that this is a very strong claim (and I haven't seen it anywhere and I'm glad it's finally coming up) and it actually proves another claim of mine, which is that the creationists are not looking for the truth, but are looking to avoid their fear that they are wrong by rationalizing.
    If I have time I will watch the video.

  36. Hezi, why did I laugh at you, can you explain?

    Is what makes you laugh is the claim that dinosaurs laid eggs?

    Or the claim that today's birds evolved from them?

    What was the thing that made you laugh?

  37. Asaf
    I will explain dating by rings you don't just count the rings.
    We know that climate affects the rings. For example in many types of trees, a rainy year creates wider rings. In this way each tree provides a series of numbers that describe the width of the rings. Suppose we have such a series of wood tested today, from wood between 1000 years old. In addition, we have another series, also of a 1000-year-old tree, but this tree was evident many years ago, let's say a few hundred years. Now you can put the 2 series at the same time and move one of them until we get an overlap between the values ​​of the series. This way you can accurately date the older tree.

    In this way, by comparing many series we reach 12000 years back, and even a little more.
    At the same time - we see that the carbon 14 dating matches the rings during the overlapping period, and thus we know that the carbon 14 method is also very reliable.

  38. Hezi
    I have been following your comments for some time and as someone who has been here for thousands of years I have come to one conclusion. You are in advanced stages of cognitive remission. I suggested that you go to your family doctor as soon as possible and ask him for anti-seizure pills and an urgent referral to psychiatry

  39. Miracles,
    What do you mean by number of trees? If it is about several trees then you rely on carbon tests and not on rings.

  40. Eyal
    Explain to me more slowly. Your explanation was too complex. I'll help you…

    Cute breasts .. Once, a long time ago, there were very large animals called dinosaurs.
    Do you understand by now?

  41. Geez, first the egg developed, and only then the chicken. The dinosaurs already laid eggs (even fossilized nests were found with eggs and small dinosaurs in them) and because all the birds of today (including the chicken) evolved from the dinosaurs, they also inherited the egg-laying feature.

    So this is the last time I hear the stupid question "what came before the chicken or the egg".

  42. H. Z.,
    You are confusing a lot of things. Evolution is not random at all. What is random is the genetic mutations, and this is only part of evolution, and not even the main part.
    The egg and the chicken did not evolve at the same time. There was a process of billions of years, which resulted in the development of several breeding methods that exist today. Each cell in the body contains the genetic information of a complete production, and it is very logical that a new creature would develop from a single cell of another creature, but there are also creatures that develop in a slightly different way.
    Chazi - do you want to study? So ask, say what you didn't understand. But - don't say that all science is wrong - because that only shows opacity....

  43. Asaf
    I didn't say there are tree rings... I said there is a tree between 43600 years. I don't understand, you want to argue about it?

  44. miracles,
    Nevertheless, I will respond to you specifically, because
    The one who screwed up is you.
    You said here that you don't understand my claim that an egg and a chicken could not have randomly evolved at the same time.

    So look for someone to explain this claim to you...

  45. Miracles and the rest of the slanderers,

    You disgust me...

    Do not deserve a response at all...

  46. One point, I'm watching the confrontation (really interesting) and Bill Nye referred to this very point in his words, he says that if the animals that came down from Noah's ark really developed within 4000 years all the types and varieties of animals that we see today, this means that the rate of development is so fast, that we should To see at least 40 new species of animals that did not exist before develop before our eyes every day.

  47. Don't fall into the trap.
    The creationists are shooting themselves in the foot. And the proof is very simple:
    According to creationists, all human genetic diversity was created within 6000 years (and if you consider the flood then it is even faster).
    I mean, if you look at what comes from the creationists' claims, it turns out that they claim super super fast evolution.

    Exactly the opposite of what they are trying to claim with words. And so they contradict themselves.

    Let them shoot themselves.

  48. outrigger
    My engineer forgot to mention that his robot is fed by smaller robots, and these robots are fed by other robots!!! Can you imagine such a loving engineer???

  49. outrigger
    Too bad you don't read what I write...
    I wrote to you that remnants developed in Africa and spread into Europe and Asia. We know from Herodotus that there were lions in northern Greece, fossils were found in Hungary for example, and to this day there are lions in India.
    Therefore, finding a lion fossil in Israel does not contradict anything and it is rather expected.

    About marsupials in America. You are of course right. Australia and South America were once connected via Antarctica, and that's how the marsupials got through. Here is a beautiful example of the predictive power of the theory of evolution. We would expect to find marsupial fossils in Antarctica, right? So this is what they found 🙂

    Let me explain to you where the contradiction to evolution is. Assuming that the whole continental migration issue is true (and I don't think there is any doubt here) then finding a marsupial in Europe means that we have a parallel development of 2 classes on identity, something that is contrary to our understanding of evolution. I mentioned the subject of continental migration just for the sake of completeness….

    You wrote "The proof of planning in nature is the incredible complexity, much higher than what is seen in human engineering. ” A very nice sentence, but I think it is wrong. In engineering, a good design is a simple design, with a minimum of parts, and the few parts that are there should have a simple geometry and be made of geometric materials. This is exactly why the watch has a wonderful design. There are reasons for these preferences of engineers, such as reliability and ease of manufacture for example.

    If an engineer comes to me and gives me a design for a weak robot made of 200000 different and complex components, which is difficult to manufacture and breaks down all the time, and he comes to me with complaints and excuses all the time.... - I will immediately throw the plan in the nearest bin 🙂

    Darwin showed us that evolution explains this design in a beautiful and precise way. Until now they have not found a shred of contradiction to his wonderful Torah. Why exactly not accept it??

    In particular, Darwin taught us several things:

    1) All human beings are equal - as opposed to religious belief
    2) We are no better than any other animal and we have no special rights - apart from religious belief
    3) Just as 99% of the species became extinct - our place in the future is also not guaranteed at all - unlike religious belief
    4) Morality is not something dictated from above, and each person is responsible for his actions - as opposed to religious belief.

    If I were you, I would be much more modest and I wouldn't say that they tripled my life expectancy and yours are wrong...

  50. Well Nissim, let's continue. Let's see if the theory you hold really holds water scientifically (hint - it doesn't).

    First, you avoided the question, so I will ask again - will finding a fossil of a lion in Israel disprove evolution? (remind you: there are no lions in Israel) yes or no?

    "Marsupials evolved after Australia broke away from Africa, so there are no marsupials in Africa."-

    FYI: There are marsupials in America.

    "If one is found, it creates a difficult problem for evolution, or perhaps for the subject of continental migration."-

    I mean you admit it won't contradict evolution. So why did you give this wrong example?

    "It is interesting that you claim that scientific experiments have shown that DNA cannot survive
    Over a million years." -

    You claimed that 400 million year old DNA samples were found. Do you back down from this claim or not?

    Spielberg: It's possible that animals became extinct because of massive hunting or because of natural catastrophes. What does it have to do with the question of whether they were planned or not? Prepared objects are also pushed all the time. Today you will hardly find the DeLorean or other classic cars. That doesn't mean they weren't designed.

    The proof of design in nature is the incredible complexity, much higher than what is seen in human engineering. A standard watch, for example, consists of about 50 components. While in a standard strain there are close to 200,000 different proteins. When each protein is assembled by itself and performs functions that man can only dream about. Evolutionists admit that nature is more complex than human engineering. They only claim that because life contains a hereditary mechanism and mutations, given millions of years it is possible. But they are wrong - because even a designed object capable of replicating and changing is still proof of design. (Scientists, for example, created a replicating robot).

  51. Nissim Cohen
    I finished my first degree at the Technion many, many years ago.. 🙂

    I see that you have a hard time with the concept of living matter, isotopes, etc. How about tree ring dating? What do you think about the fact that such dating is very accurate up to 12000 years ago?

    Anyway, how about a tree in Australia between 43,600 years old? This tree is still alive, and it is not the oldest creature alive today. Here is one piece of evidence that completely disproves your entire theory. Now you must feel liberated 🙂 🙂
    You don't have to thank me... but thank yourself that until today you believed in nonsense....

    Really... be a man for once!!

  52. H. Z.,
    Beautiful silence for the wise - and the cover for fools...
    The term creationism is an abbreviated translation of the American term young Earth creationist. Such a person believes that the world was created by an intelligent creator (God according to his close friends), and he certainly does not believe in evolution.

    You do not know even approximately what evolution is, but in your great stupidity you are not aware of it. Only a fool would even think to ask how the egg and the chicken were created at the same time. It's as stupid as asking how a cat can fly under water...

    There are very smart religious people - you are not...

  53. Dear Lansim.
    Read the introduction to modern physics published by the Technion, and you will learn well that time measurement that relies on radioactive emission of the carbon isotope is based on the assumption that the rate of emission is constant, and does not depend on other factors. And understand that measuring time backwards is not an exact science. And study well Einstein's theory of relativity and you will know that time is part of four dimensions that define the position of a body in space, so that if there is no space there is no time. And just as space is the whole of creation, and no scientist disputes this, so time is the whole of creation. And before the creation everything is not, only a pure mind of wisdom and knowledge. And you will know that the world of human thought is generally a world that was created later and is dependent on time.
    And you will know that the belief in the reality of God is built into the very creation of man, and every disbeliever in this belief is a disbeliever in truth and denies himself and the reason of man who was created in the image of God.
    And finally, I recommend you read the book Da'at and Torah, to understand the concepts of nothing and zero.
    Best regards

  54. Faith does not need proof, therefore there is no possibility of a connection between faith in God, in the Creator,
    In Aliens or Spaghetti Monster,
    At the same time in science it is known that a proof can be denied but a negation cannot be proven
    Therefore, science has no possibility to prove/disprove the existence of vanities,
    Therefore, any attempt to convince believers of facts that contradict their faith is doomed to failure,
    That's why there is also a deaf discourse here when on the one hand there are good people who rely on science,
    And on the other side believe ... ignorant.
    And this has already been said in Hebrew

  55. The opponents of evolution are looking for proof and evidence that contradicts science, but I have not heard a single proof from them (not a claim in the air) why their theory is true.

  56. my father
    What I argued was that the very act of bringing this whole "shameful spectacle" as a confrontation between science "and creationists,
    is a scandal that sensible people cannot tolerate.

    I'll tell you, because I didn't bother to read everything you wrote in this article...
    It's an insult to those who have a little sense in my head...

    Are you trying to disprove Darwin's theory?
    Tell us here, an egg and a chicken could not have been created at the same time by random mutations...
    Furthermore, is the phenomenon of reproduction through eggs,
    Was it supposed to happen randomly at the same time, among millions of species of animals?

  57. It is true that President Johnson, who was a Southerner, wanted to develop the South and therefore brought engineers there and developed the space industry, but a few tens of thousands of engineers cannot defeat tens of millions of ignorant people who repeatedly vote in favor of the death penalty (Texas is the deadliest state in this area), For gun ownership and against abortion.

  58. Hey, a creationist is anyone who thinks that the universe was created by an unnatural process, the exact definition of Kentucky idiots is young earth creationists, and anyone who thinks that aliens are responsible for our existence regardless of the age of the earth is also a creationist.
    And Darwin's theory is only wrong in the way that Zamir Cohen presents it, not as it is in reality. The element of randomness - mutations is one of four elements, not every generation all the genes are re-mixed, it is a fact that children resemble their parents. It takes many generations of genetic drift, some of which involves mutations, but the majority It simply involves interbreeding between relatives (from the marriage of relatives the child is debilitated - Gedi Yigil) plus reproductive isolation to create a separate species.
    This process is accelerated in the event of a catastrophe and the evacuation of ecological niches (or the creation of new ones). I know that your Rami Shekels didn't understand anything about biology, but I'm responding, so that those who read your nonsense are not impressed by it.
    If you repeat the 'random evolution' a million more times, besides it will annoy me that you are not ready to learn and I will block you again, you are also making fun of yourself.

  59. How much garbage can you write on a "scientific" website?

    The term "creative" is supposed to be used as a counter term to Darwin's theory of random evolution.
    Bringing the claim that the world has only existed for 6000 years, against Darwin's wrong theory,
    He is one big scandal.
    "Creationists" are all those who claim that life was created by intelligent involvement,
    And not those who claim that the world has only existed for 6000 years.

    Enough to throw sand in the poor...
    If this site is only for fools, you'll keep writing the way you write…

  60. "Scientific ignorance in the southern countries"? The South is the capital of the American space industry, for the information of the moron who came up with the sentence!

  61. Outrigger,
    You make the creator. A lion fossil in Israel supports evolution and shows that there is dynamic selection and extinction of species. In your opinion, if there was a creator, how do you explain the extinction of species? Is it conceivable that a mistake was made in that the lions were in Israel in the beginning and now they are not?!

  62. Outrigger
    You talk about evolution without even understanding what evolution is. Lions evolved in Africa and spread north and east. To this day there are lions in India. Likewise elephants and rhinos. Therefore it was surprising that you would not find fossils of lions from India to Kush.
    There are 3 series of mammals. There are cetaceans almost all over the world, and there are bib mammals and marsupials in and around Australia. Marsupials evolved after Australia broke away from Africa and therefore there are no marsupials in Africa. If one is found, it creates a difficult problem for evolution, or perhaps for the issue of continental drift.

    It is interesting that you claim that scientific experiments have shown that DNA cannot survive
    over a million years. Is science suddenly accurate? 🙂 After all, according to you, science is a lie……

  63. Outrigger, even if they show you conclusive proof of the non-existence of God, you will claim that it is Fata Morgana.

  64. Miracles, why would a kangaroo fossil in Africa, for example, disprove evolution? In your opinion, even a fossil of a lion in Israel would disprove evolution since there are no lions in Israel? Of course that's not true.

    Regarding DNA samples. For your information: laboratory tests show that dna does not mean to survive at all for more than a million years at a temperature close to stagnation. And several tens/hundreds of thousands of years at an average temperature. So according to what do you claim that 400 million year old DNA samples were found? This actually disproves the claim that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

    Regarding a human fossil next to Dino. Why would this disprove evolution? Evolutionists will simply argue that man evolved earlier than thought. This effect is called the Lazarus effect. Which means that evolution is irrefutable.

  65. I know why the story of Genesis XNUMX contradicts Genesis XNUMX - my question is addressed to all religious people who decided to believe Genesis XNUMX and not Genesis XNUMX.
    On what basis did you decide that Genesis XNUMX is incorrect?
    On what basis did you decide that Genesis XNUMX is correct?
    And why is it so hard to accept that both are wrong? - After all, the reason you rejected one is also an attack on the other.

  66. But I didn't understand why he talked about human bones that date back to the time of the dinosaurs, what is the origin of this nonsense?

  67. Ariel
    It is very easy to contradict evolution. All you need is to find a kangaroo fossil in our area. Or an elephant fossil in Australia.
    I wonder why the believers don't search? 🙂

  68. Believing that there is a creator and planner for the world, it is something that is difficult for me to grasp that there are those who believe in this, but it is something that cannot be disproved, because everything can be solved, to say that the world was created 6,000 years ago with buried dinosaur bones, why did the creator decide this way (probably he wanted faith in him to be strong more the lower the intelligence)
    But to believe that there is an all-powerful and good creator of the world who is interested in what everyone does and wants to be believed in is completely delusional and even though most of the world believes it, I can't think of it as anything other than mental illness.
    Why did he create the appendix, why the coccyx? Why are there people who are born with severe genetic diseases, babies who cannot survive more than a few days. If there was planning here, our gardens would be perfect or at least good, not with so many flaws.

    As the science of genetics advances, it wouldn't surprise me that in 1,000 years humans will be able to create new humans with no genetic defects or at least with much less than what is found in nature.

    In general, for me, evolution is not a theory, it's simply common sense, those who find it easier to reproduce will reproduce more, because the copying of genes is not perfect and sexual reproduction creates different sets of DNA, sometimes a significant difference is created and if it contributes, it can affect the chances of reproduction.

  69. Nissim Cohen
    I really hope you are a representative case of a believer 🙂
    Does time matter? Next time you're sick, maybe take penicillin from 50 years ago?
    Time estimation is an exact science. Let me explain a little, and try to concentrate and understand.
    The first method of measuring time back is by looking at tree rings. Beyond the fact that rings are added each year, the width of the rings depends on the climate prevailing at that time. Take two trees alive today and you will see that they both have the same ring pattern. Now take an old tree today and compare it to a tree that died hundreds of years ago. By comparing patterns, you will be able to know in what exact year the tree died and also when it started growing. With this method you can go back something like ten thousand years and more, exactly one year!!!
    Now, we have another clock called carbon 14. The half-life of this material is 5700 years, and with it we can date up to ninety thousand years ago, with an accuracy of something like a percent. how do you know Because you get equal dating when compared to the tree ring method.
    There are other clocks that go back billions of years, with an accuracy of one percent (or less).
    Nissim Cohen - it's science. Believing in talking snakes is stupid.

  70. And as for what you asked the previous commenter, yes it will definitely be a rebuttal, I have not yet heard of such a thing.

  71. I didn't understand, are you claiming that human fossils have been found from the time of the dinosaurs? Please provide a reference.

  72. Nissim Cohen
    If in your opinion the Creator of the world is wise, where was he in the expulsion from Spain, where was he in Auschwitz, where was he when Stalin eliminated the superiors of his people and so did Mao in China? Where was he in Cambodia when Pol Pot exterminated two million of his own people? Where was he in Rwanda, where millions were also murdered? And don't come with answers like they did what was bad in the eyes of God? Try to give an answer that is not theological. Only then will it be possible to take you seriously, and even that is not certain.

  73. And another answer, for those who claim to understand what is written in the Torah. The word "day" in the Torah is not univalent. The word "days" is also used to measure a year, therefore, the word "day" is also used to indicate a period of time. The day mentioned in Genesis begins in the morning and ends in the morning, while the 24-hour day begins in the evening and ends in the evening. And the time has come for a person to know that time is a tool created for the purpose of measurement, and has no value if there is no one who can measure it.

  74. To all those who disagree, about the time of man's creation.
    If you studied exact science, the evaluation of a scientific function on samples of decades, which would be correct for an event that happened thousands of years ago, does not belong to exact science, but to the realm of stories that have no grip on reality. Time has no value when there is no one to measure it. Time is a tool for measuring the rate of changes, and it has no power to effect changes in nature.
    Those who run away from the intuition that there is a wise and intelligent creator for the wonderful creation, will soon discover what Einstein knew, the exact science is actually the black horse that the creator uses to prove his intelligence.

  75. Someone, before I answer you, do you think a T. Rex fossil next to a human fossil disproves evolution?

  76. outrigger, how exactly does the fossil of the spider ("A golden orb-weaver spider from the Middle Jurassic") contradict the theory of evolution? Where did you hear that there were no spiders in the time of the dinosaurs?

  77. Well done. Nye won precisely because he is not a research scientist, but "just" an intelligent person with extensive knowledge of the history of science and an understanding of the scientific method. Scientists in such debates (like Dawkins) tend to bury the enemy with complicated technical information and usually show condescension. Dawkins (whom I greatly appreciate) always enters the arena in the name of ethical jihad and explains that those who believe in God are simply idiots and that science proves that God does not exist, regardless of my opinion and yours on this, it provokes antagonism. Nye simply asked questions, said that in his opinion there is no problem being Christian and scientific (you can argue but that's how you win...) and tried to show that the second opinion simply doesn't hold water. That's how you win.

  78. Nitzan, it seems you got confused. I actually claim that evolution is unfounded. And miracles - and if I show you that DNA samples that are tens of millions of years old have been found, thank you that evolution is nonsense?

  79. Don't get confused it just seems that both sides are driven by the same motives.

    The thing with the religious people whose insistence on their claims comes from fear!!! And not from knowing the truth.

  80. Oops, late proofreading:
    The facts are there and it is impossible to understand them differently from what they say - otherwise it is a lie to ourselves and to those who direct things (if we believe).

  81. Nissim Cohen, outrigger and other non-believers. You have a problem with your faith, you should go to some strengthening workshop for a few months.

    Perhaps when you return from the workshop you will realize that you are arguing with facts and trying to twist and distort them according to half-truths that all kinds of people with an interest plant in the air.

    If you really believed, then your question should be: "And by Allah, our Father in heaven must have done things that are not so understandable. Let's try to understand what they are saying and why he did it that way."
    And not to invent all kinds of human skulls found in the stomach of a T-Rex with DNA from before the big bang.

    In Hebrew - deal with the facts, why they are there and what was/is his purpose. If they are there, they have a reason - or there is no faith.

    And my opinion - the facts are there and it is impossible to understand them differently from what they say - it is a lie to ourselves and to those who direct things (if we believe). Faith and the Bible do not come to teach history but how to behave and fill us inside - the rest is external.

  82. Nissim Cohen

    I have news for you in Cappadocia which is in Turkey there are caves that were inhabited 10,000 years ago. A little more than 20 years ago, in a village called Yonogami in Okinawa, at a depth of 40 meters under water, buildings the size of the pyramids in Egypt were found... but no one knows who built them. According to the researchers' estimate, they were over 12,000 years old. It is clear that no one built buildings under water, at that time the water level was lower and with the melting of the ice at the end of the ice age the sea level rose. Besides a theological explanation, can you give another explanation? With all due respect and appreciation to the Bible, it does not deal with mathematics, physics, geology, or astronomy. You need some knowledge in these professions before reaching sweeping conclusions like yours that have nothing to rely on. The easiest thing to be under the theological umbrella. By the way, when was the last time you read a book on archaeology, what do you know about the Median kingdom, Sumer, the Hittites, the Incas, the Toltecs, the Maya, Egypt and more. Read a little and you will become educated and come out of the shell of "incredibly you will demand". If they didn't ask questions then there wouldn't be cars, phones and certainly not the computer you use.

  83. Because one of the stories was the mythology of Israel and the other of Judah, and when Josiah reinstated the priests of the two nations after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and its exile at the hands of Assyria, it was difficult to unite them, so they simply placed both of them in the first two chapters of Genesis. There are other cases of mistakes - Abraham tells Abimelech that his sister sings, etc. - Isaac also says this to the same Abimelech (who probably did not remember the trick from Abraham), also in the story of the flood the raven was replaced by a dove in the middle...

  84. I didn't understand 2 things: 1. Why are the proceeds from buying the DVD of the debate dedicated to saving the Creation Museum?
    2. Why did whoever decided to believe the story of Genesis XNUMX but ignore Genesis XNUMX?
    (In Genesis XNUMX the man was created first, then the plants in the second half and finally the woman - while in Genesis XNUMX the story is reversed and the woman was created together with the mother of man)

  85. estimate
    You sound like a thinking person, so why are you talking such nonsense??? 🙂
    It says 6 days and rested on the seventh... And whoever does not rest should be killed. How do you conclude that these are not normal days? Because it doesn't fit what we know? So what, you adapt the story to reality?
    Creation cannot be contradicted.... Nor can you contradict that the world was created on January 2014, XNUMX.

    You are right that the existence of God cannot be contradicted, but…. There are some very good reasons to give up on the idea.
    The first is that we learn to explain the entire universe without the need for a creator. We are not there, but there is no reason to think otherwise.
    The second is that we see no signs of an external planner, or a planner at all. The living world is especially, extremely messy. The only way to explain the living world we know is evolution.
    The third is that the existence of a Creator falls below the foundation of science! Science assumes that there are laws in nature, and if there is something that does not comply with these laws then there is a problem.
    The fourth reason is the evil and cruelty in the world. I'll just give you an example: a lion catches a deer, why does the deer have to suffer for long minutes until it dies?

    My conclusion is that those who believe in God, simply do not think……

  86. Outrigger
    You just lack for the lies of other idolaters.
    No fossils have ever been found in the rock that is not from an appropriate period. Whoever says yes is lying.
    DNA from more than 400 million years ago was found. Whoever says that DNA doesn't survive that long is either a liar or an idiot or both.
    In your holy Torah it is written that the world was created in 6 days. Now, when it turns out that this is a stupid claim, you say that today is not a day... My words were taken out of context... and other kinds of stupid arguments.

    The same science that you despise so much, extended your life expectancy 3 times. Without the huge waste that followed religion, we could have cured cancer a long time ago and improved life even more.

    It is not for nothing that there is a proven connection between low intelligence and religious belief...

  87. colleague. You say that a theory should change according to the findings. But that's exactly the problem with evolution. No finding will disprove it.

    If a human fossil is found next to him, they will simply claim that man evolved earlier than they thought. And this is exactly the claim made by the study I linked to, and also contradicts your claim that a fossil of Dino next to a modern human should not be found. And note that these are the claims made even by you:

    1". Or that the T-Rex did not become extinct about 65000000 years ago, but despite this, no fossil record remained during that period until the appearance of man.
    2. Or man has existed for more than 65000000 years, but human fossils for some reason have only existed for less than a million years"

    "All the scientific knowledge that exists today shows that DNA samples older than 7000000 years do not exist"-

    And if I find one for you, thanks, the age of the world does not reach tens of millions of years? Or will you simply claim that you need to look for an explanation and that's it?

  88. The Tanach cannot be contradicted because the days mentioned in it are necessarily not days in the terrestrial sense. We do not have enough information regarding the formation process of the geological layers to learn anything conclusive from them. Creation cannot be contradicted by proving evolution, for the simple reason that the world may have been created at a certain point in time (time was created together with space), so there are no winners or losers here, this is a matter of faith. The debate is not between science and religion, but between two beliefs: is only what can be investigated with the tools we have considered correct, and is there no meaning to anything, or was the world created for a certain purpose, and then we should try to understand for which. A debate between faiths. Anyone who is not biased, in my opinion, understands that the creation scientist has no intrinsic advantage.

  89. outrigger
    First of all, a theory that changes in light of new findings is more reliable and "scientific" than a theory that does not change, update or sharpen in light of new discoveries or for any reason.
    Second, no human fossil has been found (and is unlikely to be found) next to a T-Rex fossil.
    If such a pair of fossils is discovered, it will be proven that both fossils were fossilized at approximately the same time, and there is no explanation for their existence in the same layer, this will fundamentally change all existing scientific knowledge about dinosaurs and will be proof that:
    1. Or the T-Rex did not become extinct about 65000000 years ago, but despite this, no fossil records remained during that period until the appearance of man.
    2. Or man has existed for more than 65000000 years but human fossils for some reason have only existed for less than a million years
    3. Or that all of humanity's scientific knowledge of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy and mathematics is incorrect
    4. Or at some point, a man invented a time machine, went back to the distant past where he died a (probably horrible) death alongside a T-Rex

    All the scientific knowledge that exists today, shows that DNA samples older than 7000000 years do not exist and DNA samples that are claimed to have come from dinosaurs, probably result from later contamination.

  90. Here is a rebuttal to Bill Nye's words: misplaced fossils are found all the time (search: "A golden orb-weaver spider from the Middle Jurassic") evolutionists simply change the time of the appearance of the creature. Hence, according to evolution, a human fossil can be found next to a T-Rex and evolution will not be disproved. Hence, evolution is not scientific in itself.

    Regarding the age of the earth. DNA samples of 80 million year old dinosaurs were found. When laboratory experiments show that DNA should not survive at all after only hundreds of thousands of years. Certainly not tens of millions of years. Which means that even the age of the world claim is questionable.

  91. He who learns from the Torah that the world was created before 5774, does not understand what is written in the Torah. Only man was created before 5774. But the sky and the earth, sea and land, sun and moon, fish and birds and animals, there is no way to know. Because time was created on the fourth day at the time of the creation of the sun and the moon. And every day expressed in the Torah, is a description of a change of situations and not a time of 24 hours.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.