Someone pointed me to a site called HaDibrot. There is a section on this site concerning Judaism and Science. Since this is a topic that interests me, I decided to take a look.
I sampled a few articles and here is what I found.
In the article entitled Flat or Round, Rabbi Zamir Cohen tries to prove that Jewish sages were light-years ahead of their non-Jewish contemporaries with regard to science. The example in this article is whether the earth is flat or round. He starts by stating some of the popular mythologies of the ancients (the world was flat, on the backs of whales or elephants [has he been reading Terry Pratchett?], etc.) He then goes on to state that some ancient Greeks made the claim that the earth was round but that they were largely ignored until Copernicus.
Around 1514 a Spanish atronomer named Copernicus wrote a small book called the Little Commentary. In it he maintained that the earth is round and rotating. Influenced by Copernicus’ ideas, Columbus attempted to find a westward route from Portugal to Asia, in order to shorten the lengthy eastward route pursued at that time.
Never mind the fact that Columbus died in 1506. Columbus already knew the world was round before Copernicus. That was the whole point of his trip - to prove that it could be done (side point: Columbus had no idea of the size of the world. He badly underestimated it. Had the Americas not been there, he and his crew would have starved to death long before reaching the Orient). No intellectuals in Columbus' time seriously doubted that the world was round. The people who thought the world was flat at that time were the ignorant masses - the type who believe that aliens are currently abducting people and performing experiments on them in their ships.
He then goes on to state that (of course) Judaism had it right all along. To prove it, he quotes the Zohar (claiming that the Zohar is 2000 years old - yet another area to argue on). Of course, the fact that the Greeks knew it even before the Zohar was supposedly written conveniently gets forgotten between the first paragraph and the last one.
In another article, titled Don't Buy A Forgery, El Hamekorot presents an article on the accuracy of the Jewish Calendar. First, he (rightly) mentions the inaccuracies of the Julian calendar. This inaccuracy, of course, led Pope Gregory XIII to establish the Gregorian calendar. Of course, while the Gregorian calendar is a vast improvement over the Julian, it, too, is not perfect and needs adjustments of a second or two from time to time.
He then goes on to describe the accuracy of the Jewish calendar. He states that the famous Gemara in Rosh HaShanna that the lunar month is 29.5 days and 793/1080 hours long. Of course, Mr. Hamekorot conviently leaves out the fact that the Jewish calendar *does* undergo calendrical drift and that it has drifted about 6 days or so in the last thousand years.
The next article I perused was titled The Atmosphere: A Perfect Balance by somebody with the pen name Arachim. In it, he (?) goes on to show that the world had to be created by an Intellegent Being because there is just enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support life. If there was less we wouldn't be able to exist and if there was more, fires would have devestated the planet long ago.
Setting aside the factuality of his claims as to whether or not more or less oxygen in the atmosphere would have that effect, there is the simple fact that this proof is no proof at all. All it proves is that (a) God created the world OR (b) it just happened that way and the proof of it is that we exist.
In Did God Speak On Mount Sinai? an anonymous author presents the familiar "proof" of the histirocity of the Sinatic revelation by the fact that there were many people there. He states:
On this basis, let us examine the Giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai — the most widely witnessed event of all times. This event was witnessed by six million people who described it to those of their children who were born after the event. These children in turn passed that information to their progeny in a direct, unbroken chain that stretches until our times.
Firstly, I'd argue with his assertion that the Giving of the Torah was the most widely witnessed event of all times. I'm pretty sure that every Superbowl for the last thirty years had more than six million viewers.
While we're at it, where did he come up with the six million number? Does the author really think that for every male between 20 and 60 there were *nine* others at Mount Sinai? I think even two million is pushing it, but six?
In any event, this proof is no proof anyway. Christian mythology states that the dead came walking out of their graves when Jesus entered Jerusalem. That was certainly witnessed by many people. The fall of Troy was certainly witnessed by many, many people - should we believe that the Greek gods were involved in that affair (if it even happened at all)? In short, there are any number of legends in the world that state that they were witnessed by large groups of people. While it may certainly be a point in thier favor over the claim of a lone revelation (such as Gabriel's appearing to Mohammed in Islam or Jesus' rising from the tomb in Christianity), it certainly isn't any form of "proof."
Personally, I've seen any number of "proofs" to the veracity of the Torah. And each time I see such a "proof" it inevitably falls flat. Personally, I think that trying to offer "proofs" to the Torah really just misses the point anyway. I don't keep Shabbos because I'm convinced the world was created in six 24-hour days and that God was tuckered out so He took a nap on the seventh. I don't keep kosher because I have "proof" that God doesn't want us to get trichinosis. I keep Shabbos because I believe God commanded it, and because I believe it is beneficial to have a day apart from the others. I keep kashrus because I believe that God commanded us to. I don't keep the mitzvos because I think the rabbis were scientifically ahead of everyone else... I keep them because I believe that God commanded us to and because I believe that they are beneficial to me.
Of course, the key word here is "believe." The word implies knowledge without proof. If one is going to believe, then one should do so without proofs, especially bad ones.