Dear L'maan HaTorah
Thank you for your answer. Now that we have the basic premises defined and agreed i.e.
1. The definition of Scientific Method.
2. That we both are Halachik Jews.
Let’s begin again with some of your points.
It is quite clear from your input on this blog (and your lectures) that by misusing terms like SCIENTIFIC METHOD you undermine real evidence supporting evolution of the species and all other "controversial" issues.
Following the definition of scientific method we have in common, please quote one “real evidence supporting evolution of the species” I have “undermined by misusing terms like scientific method”, you can use my “input on this blog (and my lectures)”.
I've personally attended to about 25 of your lectures, and I can confidently say I've never heard what YOU hold…
At my request you kindly mentioned the following 3 lectures:
1. Los conocimientos medicos en el Talmud
2. La edad del mundo (where you never proved IRREFUTABLY that the world is 5700 years even though that was the main theme)
3. La verdad brotara de la tierra.
I ask, for example, in these 3 lectures, you “did not hear what I hold”?
… I can surely give you a few lecture titles where I think you where misleading people:…
Could you be so kind to write at least one example of my “misleading people” in the above mentioned lectures?
Shegiot mi yabin? I am ready to make a public retraction of any mistaken information you will point on any of my thousands of lectures.
As you say, you live in Mexico, it will be easy for you to know if I did it or not.
… or are you denying that he "reveals" people's aveiros publicly?
Now that we have agreed that we both are Halachik Jews, please let me ask you: Have you studied the halachot regarding mitzvat tochacha?
P. S. 1/3
Needless to say, if “L'maan HaTorah” wants to answer my last post, he can do it in the non-moderated comment section of this blog.
P. S. 2/3
Following is another comment I sent yesterday, but was not posted (nor answered) by Natan Slifkin.
B”HDear NatanYou wrote:This is exactly why, when I agreed to debate Isaac Betech about the scientific accuracy of Chazal's statements, I insisted that he first discuss the methodology for determining when Chazal are speaking literally, and when they are speaking allegorically. Needless to say, the debate did not materialize.IB:Please remind me when you insisted on that?Could you post a link to the original proposal?
P. S. 3/3
Since last week, when Natan Slifkin linked to this blogspot, the number of newcomers on this blogspot has increased significantly, welcome!
To all the newcomers I would like to inform them that I publicly agreed to debate Natan Slifkin, as posted:
I am ready to discuss in an intellectual, multimedia (sources on screen), respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum with NS or the representative (Jewish or not) he will choose, on any scientific issue relevant to his 5 controversial books, i.e.
1. Creation of the universe (Big Bang Cosmology).
2. Chemical evolution (increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang).
3. The age of the universe.
4. Biological evolution (of the species).
5. “Dr. Betech's own model of recent special creation” (as NS named it).
6. The accuracy of science-related statements made by Chaza”l.
7. As stated above (II 6) after the debate on the scientific issues will be concluded, I am also ready to debate the validity of the theological sources presented by NS on these issues.
Needless to say, the debate did not materialize, since NS has not accepted… yet …