does Israel have 'a right to exist"?

where's the 'missing link' then?

i don't believe a word anyone who marries their cousin says. weirdo.

i have to say most people would agree with you there, including me... but why just christian fundamentalists? surely you must include ALL religious fanatics in that reasoning?

the killing and rediculous claims in the name of religion is absurd and goes against most of what peaceful religions teach. its a pity these fanatical cretins cant understand that.

however, christianity has offered the world a lot and many good people have been, and are, christians. its people and not religions who are to blame for the worlds wrong-doings.

I recommend you look into Torah science and Kabalahic mysticism, it will fascinate you... I came from a secular back ground and have found it to be the most enlightening reading - I still have a lot of trouble comprehending the whole hashem giving moses the Torah on Sinai... but some of the knowledge the Torah unlocks in amazing.

I doubt you'll ever believe any of it - but it does make an interesting read

Israel’s existence has nothing to do with the Torah.

Again, g-d created man twice - once he created the soul and then he created man... but before all of this he created animals... which ties in with evolution.

To quote my homie rabbi rabbs

I'm not saying I agree or disagree - but as none of you are evolutionary scientist you're placing the same blind faith in your theory as my homedog rabbi rabbs.

Anyone not convinced by evolution theory should spend a little while studying the human skeleton, and then look at a large dinosaur skeleton.

I was amazed by the similarities (not the shape/size obv, but the details).

It's obvious we have not been designed - there are far too many faults in us for that.

most jews believe in evolution (to some extent)... but life from nothing?

The guy behind that quote hasn't comprehended the sheer scale of the time involved in evolution.

Once you accept that mutations occur sometimes, and they do, then you have to accept that sometimes they will lead to an advantage - the seed that doesnt get digested by the bird for example.

You have to then accept that this makes them more likely to reproduce. The process is irrefutable, I suppose the only arugment comes at the point that whilst it does happen, we were still designed in the first place. But to my mind, there are too many inelegant systems in the human body to mean we have been designed.

Not from nothing. Its possible to grow self perpetuating chemicals similar to DNA.

Where the chemicals that lead to life came from.....neither of us can answer that

I believe its a more plausible solution with more evidence however.

two goldfish in a bowl one says to the other 'ok smart arse if theres no god who changes the water'

dude i have never once said i know more about judisam than you! tbh i know very little about it and dont pretend to know more than i do, i'm just saying just cos a book is translated dosn't mean its not the same book! which is what this is a book

tbf though joe is right, sometimes when things are translated the meanings change a little, because the language its translated into doesn't have certains words.

yeah m8 point taken not all languages have a direct tran for every word but commen sence can be used and have word to the effect. my point is whist the wording can and would be changed for liguistic (sp ) diffrence the over all message of the book (be it holy or otherwise) would still be the same would it not .surely the devine allmighty (if he existed) would not be arsed in which tongue his message was spoken but that the message was spreading , think about it if we were all ment to here this message then surley he would have created us to speak the same native tongue!!!!

your so thick, some words can't be translated because there isn't a similar word to use in its place. so the meaning has to be changed so it makes sense.

Andy(R) mate you’re talking out of your arse again

Lets side step evolution for the time being as it’s only a minor fragment of creationism; instead we’ll start at the beginning. From what you’ve wrote I don’t think you understand the magnitude of what you’re implying –the universes coming into existence relies on so many chances that many leading scientist now believe that there was some form of outside influence:

"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. " - Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories

"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job'." - Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University

Most enlightening of all these thoughts are those of Stephen Hawking:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"

You're attempting to imply that the laws of nature pre-dated the universe… Which leaves open the question can we have the laws of nature without nature? If this is so then those laws are fascinating as they are perfectly tuned for life (not the creation of life, as this is still a mystery).

But suppose you’re right and this series of events are total chance and by some fluke of nature life is created, how then does this life know that it needs to reproduce? Why would it? This leads us neatly onto evolution, one of the fundamental problems to neo-Darwinian theories is that life is created instantaneously on this planet – after the cooling of the Earth the oldest rocks created have a rich fossil record supporting fully formed single celled life… Not only has that, but nature created photosynthesis in the blink of an eye - immediately oxygenating the earth and creating the perfect environment for life to evolve.

This series of chances leads us back to the age old question - where does life come from? The big bang? But the big bang theory clearly states that the only thing created was light beams (no protons or neutrons – just highly energized light beams) can light beams transform into life? Many modern physicists would inform us that over time these light beams turn into:

Neutrons, protons and electrons
Then they transform into atoms
Then hydrogen and helium
Then stars
Then the stars implode and create the heavier elements
Then comes the creation of stars and planets
One planet happens to be far enough away from the sun to support water
Its just far enough away from the sun so that the gravitational pull rotates the planet so one side isn’t permanently facing the sun (like Venus).
Has the perfect tilt so that the seasons can be perfectly distributed.
And on this planet the rocks, water and clay become alive.

That’s quite some chance – forget about genetic mutations – do you realize the odds of this being chance? the only explanation that I’ve come across is parallel universes… which is even more far fetched than a creation.

Now if you would desire I could punch holes in Darwins theory of evolution?

Its not about which fucking tongue its spoken in - it's to do with the depth and meanings of the words which can only be observed when it is in Hebrew.

I'll break it down to terms you'll understand - when the Americans re-made the Italian Job it was shit, the story was same but because it was someones perception of the original it became a completely different (and massively inferior) production.

Now Jews believe that the Torah is the word of g-d... Any attempt for man to translate this is no longer the word of g-d, its mans interpretation of what he believes g-d was trying to say.

Two completely different things!

Listen to Alexander and shut the fuck up

i'm not desputing the fact that some words dont have a direct trans what im saying is you can rephrase thing to get the message across in 99% of the time

shit film your right

who wrote it then ? and the key word here is belive!!!!!!!!

You can no more punch holes in evolution than you have attempted with the 'begining'.

You're just putting foward different ideas.

Your whole post (the Hawking one) repeats time and again the odds or chances of something happening. Well what are the odds of there being one divine creator? What are the chances God made the world in 7 days or 15.75mil years?

Whilst you can pull up opinions and possibly facts that may appear to contradict the begining of the universe and/or evolution, the point is that they also have facts/opinions that SUPPORT the ideas too.

Stop presenting your opinion as fact, and telling people who think otherwise that they're talking out of their arse.

I know your not allowed to write God in judaism, but how do you explain writing it with a - instead of the o? Does it not just mean the same thing, so is it not just the same offence? Do German jews write G-tt, or French jews write D-ue? It seems strange.

We believe that hashem gave the Torah to moses (mouth to mouth) - so it was g-d that wrote it via Moses with the exception, perhaps, of the final eight verses.