Dinosaurs | Imamother

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:13 pm

sequoia wrote:

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.

LOL. Erm, okay. Thanks?

I guess this means you think I'm normally a pleasure to chat with on Imamother? K....

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:24 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

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.

Approximations can be more (or less) accurate if approximations are all you've got.

But when you have a birth certificate in your pocket, approximations are meaningless.

Unless, maybe, every single one of those people will give you the exact same estimate, using various measuring technique. If that were the case, I'd probably admit it's *reasonable* to doubt the veracity of the birth certificate. (That's not to say I'd readily admit it's false...)

↑ gold21 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:34 pm

sequoia wrote:

Yes, you are Smile

:-)

Hey, all these nice compliments- well, then, I'll let y'all know that I was super excited today cuz my friend had her first baby girl today. I'm so excited!! But her doctor literally walked out a bunch of times while she was pushing (she pushed for a really long time). Maybe I'll go start a new thread on this issue, seeing as everyone is being so friendly today :-)

I don't usually get such friendly vibes here. OK I'm inspired- I'm gonna really try being friendlier now.

No, but I really gotta go to the gym. Imamother is not gonna help me get in shape. So....

I'll say this much about the age of the Earth: it's at least 28 years old. Bishvili Nivrah Haolam. Duh.

Last edited by gold21 on Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:37 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.)

I'm only familiar with Lurianic Kabbalah, and as far as I know, it contains no such notions. In fact, the Arizal strongly disagreed with other kabbalists who attempted to take literally the statement of the Zohar that G-d created and destroyed countless universes before establishing the one in which we currently exist.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:46 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?

Regarding your question about the second part, that's exactly what I'm saying (well, not the being foolish part). There are authoritative Torah views that we don't have to take Parshas Bereishis literally. Rambam explicitly says that: The account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts. (Guide For The Perplexed, 2:29). Ralbag is another source for this view (Milchamos Hashem 2:6).

And these views were stated even before the scientific knowledge was known which conflicted with parshas bereishis! Once there are conflicts with established scientific facts, then there are further sources which allow for reinterpretation.

To be honest, I find this all quite surprising. Due to various public controversies, the last decade or so has brought these issues to the public's attention in most frum communities, especially in chareidi ones, and I thought most people were aware of these approaches, and even if they didn't accept them themselves, settled on accepting them as valid approaches for those who don't buy the more traditional resolution. I guess I was wrong in assuming that.

↑ Clarissa

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:50 pm

I'm not getting into this discussion because I don't want to appear to argue against Torah on Imamother, but all I'll say is that we're members of AMNH and have been there many times, my kids have taken classes there and I took some archaeology in college. That's all I'll say on that topic.

I did take in what Gold21 about having people close to her with very different beliefs, yet they still manage to talk about all sorts of things that matter to them. I don't need to argue with my friends about the age of the earth, I need to b*tch about my husband or my weight or the messiness of my home.

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 10:53 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

I'm aware of these approaches. I never actually saw that quote from the Rambam before. Thanks for that!

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 11:05 pm

yogabird wrote:

I'm aware of these approaches. I never actually saw that quote from the Rambam before. Thanks for that!

You can read it here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ju.....6.htm Third paragraph from the bottom. You know what else he says in that paragraph?

Quote:

The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God, or even entirely to abandon and reject the principles of our Faith. It is therefore right to abstain and refrain from examining this subject superficially and unscientifically. We must blame the practice of some ignorant preachers and expounders of the Bible, who think that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of words, and that greater perfection is attained by employing more words and longer speech. It is, however, right that we should examine the Scriptural texts by the intellect, after having acquired a knowledge of demonstrative science, and of the true hidden meaning of prophecies...

Truth is, I know I'm being a bit unfair quoting those parts that support my view, because after all, it's the Moreh, so nothing in it should really be taken at face value, and one could probably find somewhere where he says something indicating the very opposite. Still, "yesh al mi lismoch".

zaq ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 11:12 pm

DrMom wrote:

Why would you tell a child that? What possible reason would one have for favoring such an odd, non-straightforward explanation over the more obvious answer?

As if the KBH has nothing better to do than plant phony evidence just to trick humankind into thinking heretical thoughts. Humankind is perfectly capable of coming up with heretical thoughts all by itself.

I do believe that the KBH has a sense of humor, though--there is no other way to explain the existence of giraffes and hippos.

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Jan 16 2014, 11:13 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being a little sarcastic in this paragraph or not, but it pretty much sums up how I personally feel it. LOL

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 12:05 am

I was googling for some references to use in this discussion, and ended up on the site of Rabbi Slifkin (the notorious Zoo Rabbi) where I found something he wrote on the subject of intellectual challenges. I thought it was really quite apt, and wanted to share it here.

Quote:

I've met people who have no problem accepting that the world is billions of years old, but would suffer a religious crisis if they were ever shown that evolution is true. I've met people who think that it's the easiest thing in the world to accept that the Gemara is not always scientifically correct, but who go to pieces when confronted with scientific inaccuracies in Tenach. And I've met people who are perfectly at ease with reading the first chapter of Bereishis non-literally, but are extremely uncomfortable with scientific objections to the Deluge. Etc., etc.

Every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge. When that which we have been taught by revered teachers, and which is a preciously held-belief in our community, is demonstrated to be incorrect, it's hard to make an adjustment. Modern Orthodox Jews who have no problem with my books are not necessarily more open-minded; it's just that evolution and Talmudic inaccuracies about science are within their societal comfort zone.

Furthermore, because every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge, this is why radically overhauling one's intellectual approach can be emotionally overwhelming. There are theological approaches which I am now comfortable with, but which I was only able to reach after a long struggle, due to my long and very limiting charedi yeshivah education. There are ideas that would have been much easier for me to accept, had they not come as such a shock.

We are not robots. We are not solely rational beings. We all have our intellectual comfort zone, and find new ideas to be challenging. Being aware of this can help us be sympathetic to others, and can help us cope with our own struggles.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 1:13 am

For those interested, I found online the text of the Ralbag I mentioned above:

Quote:

You already know from the preceding that God’s generating the universe did not occur in time, since [its generation] was from nothing to something. Likewise, our Rabbis agreed that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously... It is therefore apparent that the description of creation as being completed in six days is not in the sense that, for example, the first day was [prior] to the second as one [whole] day. Rather, they said this in order to show the priority amongst various created things...

According to the natural scheme of things, the creation of [the luminaries] should have taken place on the third day, for the heavens and the heavenly bodies are causally and ontologically prior to the elements and that which is derived from them (and yet which the Torah describes as having been created earlier)... The Torah intended through this ordering of the account of creation to awaken man through his reason to the secrets of existence... It does this by making him pause.... If it included nothing that would make a person pause, he would not study the Torah carefully, and this would be the cause that prevented him from reaping its benefits. Indeed, the change in the ordering of creation in this matter was precisely for this reason... (Milchamos Hashem 2:6)

For those that want to explore these issues more thoroughly, I strongly recommend Rabbi Slifkin's book, "The Challenge of Creation". (Amazon Page)

Note what he writes on his site: This book was written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism, but also respect the scientific enterprise and possess an advanced education in the natural sciences, and who are therefore disturbed by the challenges that are raised for their understanding of Torah. It addresses these challenges by following the approach of Rambam (Maimonides) and similar Torah scholars towards these issues, which, while firmly within the framework of authentic Orthodox Judaism, is not the method of choice in many segments of the ultra-Orthodox community. But many have found that no other approach works as well in solving these difficulties.

You can read a sample chapter of his book for free here. It's actually on the topic we're discussing, explaining one of the ways to reconcile Bereishis with scientific evidence.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 9:27 am

yogabird wrote:

What's wrong with starting from day 1 of creation.

Honestly, I don't think anything. But there was mention here of starting from day 6 of creation so I thought that might be more amenable to some.

I honestly don't enough to participate in this conversation. Years ago, like 15 maybe, when there was discussion about this, names like Dr. Spetner, Dr. Schroeder, R' Slifkin and others, there was this attitude of, oh, very fascinating but the upshot? Won't effect my mitzvah observance and hashkafos and how I live my life one iota.

For me, I'm quite comfortable with the approach of Hashem created a world that seemed fully formed, as the rules of the nature that He created would deem necessary. So if you cut down a tree that was technically a few years old, there would be rings and rings, and for me, this explained the fossils. That and that before time was created, because time is a creation, all sorts of things could have happened.

I'm not such an intellectual and am totally not a science person; I'm more the liberal arts type. I'm interested in ideas but don't have the background or knowledge at my fingertips to discuss this.