Dinosaurs | Imamother

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:55 pm

yogabird wrote:

Okay. So you're trying to say that if we need to explain why the world *looks* old but isn't actually, we can use any of those methods as opposed to the mabul.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that one can't just use the mabul to explain why the world looks old, since there is other evidence that it's so old unrelated to the mabul. This isn't saying the world IS old. It's just saying that if one wants to discount the proofs of an old earth/universe, the same way one used the mabul to explain away the geological evidence of an old earth, one would need to find further explanations with which to address all the rest of the evidence of a billion-year-old universe.

yogabird wrote:

If you agree that those methods are not very accurate, and they just make the world *seem* older than it actually is, what makes them scientific? And why are those better explanations than the mabul?

I don't at all agree that these methods aren't accurate! Please don't put words into my mouth. However, I can fully accept if other people want to believe that. If you want to dismiss those other areas of evidence because you don't trust the radiocarbon dating techniques, or for some other reason, that's fine with me.

Also, minor quibble: I think something qualifies as "scientific" if it has been determined through rigorous scientific study, experimentation, and repeated testing which it stands up to. You're entitled to say you don't trust these conclusions, but I don't think you get to question whether they're considered "scientific".

↑ saw50st8 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:55 pm

gold21 wrote:

C'mon, Saw. You went to BYM, right? My sis is there now.
I'm sure you know lots of people who believe the world is less than 6K years old.

No, I went to YSV and then out of monsey for high school. I escaped! My sisters went to BYM and they don't believe the world is less than 6000 years old.

↑ Cookies n Cream ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:56 pm

gold21 wrote:

Now I'm sure this comes as a shock to all you ladies who read astronomy books, but I do consider myself to be educated and intelligent, yet I never studied evolution, nor do I care to. I believe the world is a old as the Jewish Year is.

I have close friends who have doctorates who have never discussed the issue of evolution with me. We talk about our lives, our feelings, etc- we don't discuss dinosaurs. My sister manages a team of business analysts in a Wall Street firm and never discussed dinosaurs with me.

So yeah, we're probably just really dumb.

I don't think you're coming across dumb in the least bit. You're coming across as one of the most practical in this thread...
I'm just confused with this whole thread. I was always under the impression that dinosaurs did exist even from a Jewish viewpoint and they're currently extinct.
(Maybe because I read R. Slifkins book although I think it might have been banned.)

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:57 pm

octopus wrote:

yet if you choose to use biblical sources you most certainly can reach a number that's very close to what scientists say. someone quoted the pasuk from tehilim on the first page. where the torah wasn't given until a 1000 generations. if you count how many generations there are between adam and matan torah the number is very close. rabbi aryeh kaplan writes this in his book.

Not sure which pasuk you are referring too. I'm familiar with a chazal that states that Hashem wrote the Torah 1000 years before the world was created, but that description is very obviously symbolic or metaphorical, because time was not in existence prior to the creation of the world.

And even if it were true that there were 1000 generations between Adam and Matan Torah, I have a very hard time imagining that even the most generous calculations using the most generous estimates for how long a generation is come anywhere close to the most conservative estimates for the age of the universe according to any single branch of science.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:57 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

No, I went to YSV and then out of monsey for high school. I escaped! My sisters went to BYM and they don't believe the world is less than 6000 years old.

Oh, LOL.

See, this is what happens when you sleep thru class. You miss the discussion on dinosaurs.

↑ Cookies n Cream

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 8:59 pm

gold21 wrote:

Ok, now I'm kinda curious....

Cookies n cream, how is the world over 6k years old?

Can you explain it in really short or is it gonna be too complicated to type out?

Sorry, I think I'm confused! I meant the UNIVERSE as another poster said.
ARGHH. I need to think about this for a few minutes, I'm mixed up.
Lol!

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:00 pm

Cookies n Cream wrote:

K LOL thanks Smile

Ugh. I gotta finish my college degree. Speaking about my friends and sisters accomplishments is making me feel inadequate.

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:03 pm

Cookies n Cream wrote:

Sorry, I think I'm confused! I meant the UNIVERSE as another poster said.
ARGHH. I need to think about this for a few minutes, I'm mixed up.
Lol!

Really? You went to BY and they taught you that there is a huge discrepancy between the age of the universe and the age of the world?! (I'm assuming you mean planet earth when you say "the world".) What kind of explanation did they give? In what context was this taught?

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:04 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

So then why was my post where I stated that these methods are based on assumptions irrelevant to the point of your post?

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:09 pm

bigsis144 wrote:

According to this, the world could be 2 seconds old too and your memories of yesterday were instantaneously imprinted on your neurons so that you believe yesterday existed when it didn't really.

So while it's impossible to argue philosophically with this (you'll just go in epistemological circles), it's not a scientific argument, and is irrelevant to a specifically scientific discussion or proof.

I have reason to believe that the mabul happened, while I have no reason to believe that I didn't exist 2 minutes ago. In fact, I have evidence to the contrary. Unless of course everyone around me was created 2 minutes ago too, together with all their memories.

I don't think one is nearly as unscientific as the other.

↑ octopus ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:09 pm

yogabird wrote:

rav aryeh kaplan uses this pasuk to calculate the universe is millions years old. that's right. there are no 1000 generations between adam and matan torah. therefore the pasuk is talking about the beginning of the universe. not from the time of adam. my father gives this class many times, and I always sleep through the mathematical calculation because I HATE math. I will ask him later exactly how Rav Kaplan zt'l got to his calculation. If you are really interested, there are books you can read (rav aryeh kaplan zt'l is recognized by ALL to be a tremendous talmid chacham and he knew sciencE!)

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:14 pm

yogabird wrote:

So what? If science can't come to a consensus, what makes it a fact? Why should I choose their infactual (by their own definition) statements over the Torah's?

Seriously? You don't really believe what you're saying, do you?

Imagine I asked a bunch of people to try to determine your age. So they go over to you, and poke and prod you a bit, pinch your skin, pull your hair, take some measurements, ask you questions, etc. and come then come back with their results. Some say you're around 35, some say between 40-45, some say in your 20s. They all give approximate ranges. But a few people insist that you're 10, exactly 10 years old! Why? Because they asked you how you're feeling, and you told them that you're feeling as healthy as 10-year-old girl.

Would it make sense for me to say, "Well, all you guys that gave me approximations based on your experiments - none of you guys can give me an exact number! Why should I trust any of you since you're not even claiming that your number is exactly right!? Meanwhile, these other guys claim to exactly how old she is! Obviously, they're more trustworthy, it would make sense that I should go with their conclusions!"

Does that make any sense to you?

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:23 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Does anyone else here ever explore the 'Similar Topics' listing at the bottom of the thread pages? Usually I don't bother because the topics suggested don't seem to match up quite well, but in this case, it's a pretty accurate matching, and the corresponding discussion is almost identical. So no need to bother writing anymore, just go and read those old threads. It's all been said already!

Ah, but if OP would have done so (and maybe she did) and then asked a question or made a comment, we'd all be down her throat for ROT (reviving old thread). So it has to be done again every so often Tongue Out

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 9:23 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

I get the first part of your analogy-it's the scientist using tools to take scientific measurements to determine the age of the universe.

I'm not sure I understand the next part. Are you saying that statements made by the Torah and by Chazal are employing some kind of turn-of-phrase of some sort and that we are being foolish if we understand it literally?

Ummm. I don't think I buy that. So there's where the difference lies.