Dinosaurs | Imamother

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:24 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

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?

I don't see your point.

The Torah is fact.

Your post makes zero sense to me.

But of course, you're much smarter than me, I'm sure, and therefore who am I to have an opinion...

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:26 pm

yogabird wrote:

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

If the point of your comment was to explain that one can reject those other examples of evidence since they rest on the faulty assumption of the laws of physics being constant, that's fine. But at least you're acknowledging that there are other indicators of an old universe which need to be addressed.

That's all I was saying, that one can't just use the mabul to dismiss all the evidence. THAT was my main point. I wasn't bringing examples of other evidence to insist the world IS old, I just wanted to show that there are other challenges that need to be addressed, for which the mabul explanation is insufficient.

As to addressing those other challenges, sure, if you want to reject them based on not accepting that the laws of physics are constant, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to take issue with that.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:28 pm

gold21 wrote:

I don't see your point.

The Torah is fact.

Your post makes zero sense to me.

But of course, you're much smarter than me, I'm sure, and therefore who am I to have an opinion...

Why do you keep insisting that people are claiming to be smarter than you, to be saying your dumb, etc.? No one has done that ever.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:29 pm

Cuz I can't follow your posts and cuz you research stuff that I never heard of.
Way over my head.

↑ octopus ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:31 pm

ok. I found this online without calling my dad. It's Rabbi Gil Student's blog (who is a big talmid chacham btw). this explains rav kaplan's calculations:

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2......html

Tuesday, August 08, 2006
R. Aryeh Kaplan on the Age of the Universe
11:10 PM Gil Student

R. Aryeh Kaplan's position on the age of the universe has become quite famous over the years. R. Yitzchok Adlerstein summarized it in a Fall 1991 article in Jewish Action. It was subsequently published in a posthumous 1993 book Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. A transcript of a lecture by R. Kaplan on this subject is available for free download here. R. Natan Slifkin discusses this position in his The Science of Torah on pages 115-118 and The Challenge of Creation in chapter 12.

In brief, R. Aryeh Kaplan quotes rishonim who understand literally a midrash that there are 7 cycles to the world of 7,000 years each. This is quoted by the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya. R. Kaplan then quotes R. Yitzchak of Acre, a student of the Ramban, who writes that each of those years is a year of God. And, he writes, a day of God is 1,000 years, which means that a year of God is approximately 365,250 of our years. Thus, the duration of the universe is 7*7,000*365,250 = 17,897,250,000 or almost 18 billion years.

R. Kaplan writes that according to the view of the kabbalistic work Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the seventh cycle, which means that the creation discussed in Genesis happened after 42,000 years, which translates into an age of the universe of approximately 15 billion years at "creation" time.

R. Ari Kahn raises a number of question on R. Kaplan's position (see a post to the Avodah list, excerpted from his book Explorations). R. Kahn's objections are as follows:

1. According to Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the sixth (not seventh) cycle. But the Livnas Ha-Sapir does not mention the "day of God" aspect. According to R. Yitzchak of Acre, we are currently in the second cycle. That significantly diminishes the age of the universe.

2. The Arizal disputed this entire approach and understand the cycles to be spiritual and not physical. According to the Arizal, there is no basis for this entire approach.

The first objection is certainly correct: R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that we are in the second cycle. That would mean that he was of the view that the universe was slightly over 2.5 billion years old at "creation" (I.e. the creation described in Gen. 1). However, and R. Kahn certainly agrees to this, R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that the universe is billions of years old! That, in itself, is significant.

I'm not sure about the second objection. R. Aryeh Kaplan specifically raised the issue of the Arizal's view and denied its overriding significance (Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe, pp. 6-7):

Before going any further, it must be mentioned that most of the more recent Kabbalistic texts do not make any reference to these teachings. This is because two of the greatest Kabbalists, Rabbi Moses Cordovero (the RaMaK) and Rabbi Isaac Luria (the Ari) disputed this concept in general...

Here, however, the second principle that was discussed earlier comes into play. Since this is not a matter of law, there is no binding opinion. Although the Ari may have been the greatest of Kabbalists, his opinion on this matter is by no means absolutely binding. Since there were many important Kabbalists who upheld the concept of Sabbatical cycles, it is a valid, acceptable opinion.

That is presumably why the Tiferes Yisrael and Rav Kook felt comfortable citing this position. In a very recent article in the Torah U-Mada Journal on this doctrine of Sabbatical years, Raphael Shuchat suggests (here - PDF, n. 99):

Despite the fact the R. Kook follows the Ari in most areas of Kabbalah, he felt that an idea found in the writings of Ramban and R. Bahya remains legitimate despite the Ari’s criticism.

If Rav Kook felt that this position is kabbalistically justifiable, I certainly won't criticize it. Thus, while R. Aryeh Kaplan's approach might not be consistent with the most current view of the age of the universe, it demonstrates that a medieval kabbalist believed that the universe was greater than 2 billion years old, which offers justification for those in the contemporary society who believe that the universe is older than 5,766 years.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:31 pm

yogabird 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.

No, it sounded like you were rejecting the scientific conclusions because they were approximations, and not exact, and not in agreement. My point is to show that that approximations can be more accurate even though they're not exact.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:33 pm

gold21 wrote:

Cuz I can't follow your posts and cuz you research stuff that I never heard of.
Way over my head.

Hey, if you don't understand something, that's one thing. It's a whole 'nother thing to make it sound like people are making fun of you or being disrespectful.

bamamama ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:34 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Why do you keep insisting that people are claiming to be smarter than you, to be saying your dumb, etc.? No one has done that ever.

I thought I had missed where it was implied because she certainly doesn't seem dumb to me. Nice to know I'm not that crazy.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:38 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Hey, if you don't understand something, that's one thing. It's a whole 'nother thing to make it sound like people are making fun of you or being disrespectful.

It's not simply that I don't process what you're writing, it's more like speaking a different language, like if I discussed with you the pros and cons of having men and women walk on separate sides of the street in New Square- would u follow the train of thought in such a discussion? Or would u be like, "I so dont get this... But hey, if y'all wanna talk about this, go on, I'm just clueless."

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:48 pm

gold21 wrote:

Understandable. I expected that anyone unfamiliar with the concepts I mentioned might be lost, which is why I provided links to explanations of those concepts.

↑ octopus ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 6:52 pm

@ yogabird- major rabbanim throughout the ages have discussed age of the universe. it is not anti torah. just bordering on the kabbalistic side. (any maaseh braishis thing is kabbalistic.)

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:00 pm

Just asked my husband how old he thinks the world is- he said 5774 years old.

And he said "it's not what I think, it's what it is".

So either we both slept thru the same class- what are the odds?- or we were both taught the same thing- much more likely.

ElTam

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:01 pm

My rav holds that it is completely in keeping with Torah thought to not calculate the first six days as 24-hour periods. It's only if you insist they are 24 hours that you run into the dilemma of saying it's just under 6,000 or your an kofir. I don't understand the need to introduce a problem that doesn't exist.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:01 pm

octopus wrote:

@ yogabird- major rabbanim throughout the ages have discussed age of the universe. it is not anti torah. just bordering on the kabbalistic side. (any maaseh braishis thing is kabbalistic.)

Yekkes are not big into The-Practice-Of-Kabbalah-In-Todays-Day-And-Age n general, so I'll go with the non-Kaballah point of view on this one.

Tho it does sound interesting.

↑ octopus ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:05 pm

gold21 wrote:

Yekkes are not big into Kabbalah in general, so I'll go with the non-Kaballah point of view on this one.

while I agree with not having minhagim based in kabbalah, you run into major problems when you say that about perek aleph of breishis. what do you think kabbalah is exactly? It is how Hashem interacts with the world. Maaseh breishis and maaseh merkava in yechezkel is the basis of all kabbalistic sefarim. Your view is not "non-kabbalistic." It's like me saying potayto and you saying potahto. no one is arguing with you on the age of the world (when adam was put into it). The age of the universe (planets, solar system) is older.

↑ octopus ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:07 pm

@gold21- just wanted to say I really like you. I totally feel unqualified really to post on this topic. but I guess that doesn't stop me from my $.02. so thanks for bearing with me.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:09 pm

octopus wrote:

My father in law says "potahto". Just sayin.

But anywayz... OK you're talking about the age of the universe, not of the physical Earth?

Oh. I didn't get that.

You said that somewhere? I missed it.

Regarding the age of the universe- yeah, I have no clue, it probably is a lot older than the Earth.

↑ sequoia ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:10 pm

Gold, you seem to be in a mood today. Not one person, either in this thread or in any other, has ever implied you are unintelligent or uneducated. This is so random on your part. People have different interests. Some people are passionately interested in science. They can debate theories for hours or go so far as to get a doctorate in a scientific field. None of them, clearly, think that those with other interests are stupid.

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:12 pm

octopus wrote:

@gold21- just wanted to say I really like you. I totally feel unqualified really to post on this topic. but I guess that doesn't stop me from my $.02. so thanks for bearing with me.

Hey, thanks! :-)

As my lil sis would say "mwah" right back atcha!

I'm feeling really inadequate these days- my job is just not challenging enough and I'm feeling trapped career-wise... So every compliment helps.

:-)

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 7:13 pm

The general point I was trying to make was that one is free to reject evidence based on reasons one thinks are valid, but one isn't entitled to deny that the evidence exists.

An example: If someone wants to claim that Barack Obama is not a US citizen, they can't just say, "There's no evidence at all that he was born in the US!" That's just foolish and shows that they don't know anything about the issue, which means they aren't even qualified to weigh in on the matter.

However, if one says, "Yes, there is a birth certificate, and a published news report, and witness testimony, and other evidence that he was born in the US, BUT all those pieces of evidence are invalid for the following reasons...." then at least they are being honest about the evidence and should be taken somewhat seriously. At that point the discussion can focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of the evidence.

This was my point. There are many disparate sources of evidence leading to a very old age of the universe. You're free to reject them based on whatever sorts of explanation makes sense to you (mabul, physics isn't constant, world was created looking old, it's all a nes, a worldwide multi-generational conspiracy of scientists to deceive the world, etc.), but I think that honesty demands that we first acknowledge that the evidence exists. Doing otherwise is just foolish.