 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
↑
sequoia
|
 Sun, Feb 15 2015, 11:15 pm
| Shani88 wrote: | | Just like Adam and chava were created "old" ie. all grown up, already adults etc Hashem created objects that look older than they are. Hashem is almighty- he can create anything He wants- even things to make us think the world is older than it is! |
Why would God intentionally make us believe lies?
| |
|
| Back to top |
 6
|
↑
MagentaYenta
↓
|
Sun, Feb 15 2015, 11:16 pm
|
There are many different kinds of intact fossils I own a nautilus fossil, and a trilobite. The genus of trilobite dates it at over 580million years old.
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
↑
bigsis144
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 12:02 am
| yogabird wrote: | See my post above. A fossil that is 80% complete is considered record-breaking. And a lot of bones were not in the right place.
I'm assuming you're the same amother who made the assertion that they've found dinosaurs sitting on their eggs? |
Fossilized dinosaur eggs with embryos inside:
One amazing fossil find was finding a velociraptor and a protoceratops locked in combat, having likely been buried during a mudslide or flood:
| |
|
| Back to top |
8
|
↑
bigsis144
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 12:04 am
| Shani88 wrote: | | Just like Adam and chava were created "old" ie. all grown up, already adults etc Hashem created objects that look older than they are. Hashem is almighty- he can create anything He wants- even things to make us think the world is older than it is! |
Your argument was already discussed on page 1...
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
↑
bigsis144
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 12:13 am
| gp2.0 wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_%28dinosaur%29
Look at the size of that thing! Wow. Look at the skull, the pelvis, those leg bones! Incredible. |
DS with Sue at the Field Museum in Chicago:
Sue also plays an AWESOME role in the Dresden Files novel Dead Beat, with one of the most satisfying payoffs in literature for that series' rules of necromancy. 
| |
|
| Back to top |
8
|
↑
DrMom
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 1:16 am
| yogabird wrote: | | See my post above. A fossil that is 80% complete is considered record-breaking. And a lot of bones were not in the right place. |
So what? If paleontologists find, say, 200 skeletons of the same species which are, say, 60% complete, they can still piece together what the complete skeleton looked like. Not every skeleton found is missing the same 40% of its bones.
Maybe you can check out a simple book about paleontology/archeology from your local library to better understand how scientists piece together these bits of information to arrive at the current understanding of dinosaurs and their physiology, diet, etc.
| |
|
| Back to top |
7
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 2:34 am
| Quote: | | So when did the 24 hour day start?!? |
After חטא אדם הראשון.
That is when the world started running בדרך הטבע
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
ora_43
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 3:16 am
| DrMom wrote: | | So what? If paleontologists find, say, 200 skeletons of the same species which are, say, 60% complete, they can still piece together what the complete skeleton looked like. |
I think the point is that it would still disprove what amother said, that scientists found "dinasour babies, they found baby bones, eggs, and even mothers sitting on eggs in a nest."
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
↑
ora_43
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 3:32 am
| sequoia wrote: | | Why would God intentionally make us believe lies? |
I don't see what the problem would be. The process of world-creation is the same either way, it's just a question of whether the process took as long as it normally would or if it was sped up.
Like, if I had divine powers, and I created a full-grown apple tree instantaneously, and then someone came up and said "wow, what a nice tree, it must be ten years old," and I said, "nah, it's brand new, I just made it right now," and they said, "no, it's clearly ten years old" - did I intentionally make them believe lies? was it morally wrong to instantly create a full-grown tree, instead of causing it to grow slowly over the course of 10 literal years?
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
write on
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 4:52 am
I think it is very interesting how the scientifically-minded posts fail to take into consideration that carbon dating, the very measure that you are arguing for, is actually very controversial and there are doubts cast onto its empirical validity.
Just a brief Google search yielded this interesting comment:
| Quote: | I'm a paleontologist (geologist) and Carbon dating is rarely if ever used except in a few quartenary studies and even then it doesn't play much of a role. Carbon dating is more useful in other disciplines (anthropology, etc.) studying the recent past. Other radioactive techniques are used on the geologic timeframe....and again, not all that mainstream compared to using index fossils.
Carbon dating is fairly accurate. The issue can be deposition and what's being measured. It's akin to watching CSI when they somehow miraculously exclude the other thousand bits of DNA from the hotel room and perform tests in minutes on 'the right' sample and then just happen to have the 'immaculate conception' data base on hand.
If the methdology is done right then carbon dating is accurate. It's about physics and 'has to' be right. It's not the dating that's the issue but what's being dated. Sure, there might be an ancient garbage site but fire, etc. might have swept through a hundred times in the meantime...birds pooped...other animals flora died...stuff moved around by floods, storms, etc. How much integrity is there is the original material?
| http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/5111-how-accurate-carbon-dating.html
And I am not talking about Christian rebuttals whose main aim is to back up Creation (while one could argue that Science's main aim is to rebut Creation!).
A book I found very interesting is called Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky which discusses the phenomenon of finding prehistoric animal bones in the earth's layers that are geographically far removed from those animal's natural habitat (based on analyses of the food these animals actually ate, etc.). He basically posits that an enormous, earth-shattering phenomenon (ie. the Mabul) essentially shook up the earth and cast all sorts of matter in all sorts of layers and locations. I know that his book is also probably considered controversial (isn't everything?!), but since we are finite human beings applying our finite knowledge in a finite universe created by an Infinite Being, I just do the best I can.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
↑
imasoftov
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 5:35 am
| write on wrote: | | A book I found very interesting is called Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsk |
Stephen Jay Gould offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."
above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....icism
Last edited by imasoftov on Mon, Feb 16 2015, 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
↑
imasoftov
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 5:37 am
| Zus wrote: | | Modern science also claims that 24 hour-long Earth days did not always exist For 24-hour days, the Earth, sun and moon and the starts (at least the ones in our close vicinity) need to be in the fairly exact locations where they are now - this is what makes Earth spin around its axis in (almost) exactly 24 hours. |
Stars? Please cite your sources for that.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
↑
imasoftov
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 5:39 am
| sequoia wrote: | | I don't remember anything about six babies at a time. Where is that from? |
Tanchuma Shmot 5, but people know it from Rashi on Shmot 1:7
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
↑
gp2.0
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 7:17 am
| write on wrote: | I think it is very interesting how the scientifically-minded posts fail to take into consideration that carbon dating, the very measure that you are arguing for, is actually very controversial and there are doubts cast onto its empirical validity.
Just a brief Google search yielded this interesting comment:
| Quote: | I'm a paleontologist (geologist) and Carbon dating is rarely if ever used except in a few quartenary studies and even then it doesn't play much of a role. Carbon dating is more useful in other disciplines (anthropology, etc.) studying the recent past. Other radioactive techniques are used on the geologic timeframe....and again, not all that mainstream compared to using index fossils.
Carbon dating is fairly accurate. The issue can be deposition and what's being measured. It's akin to watching CSI when they somehow miraculously exclude the other thousand bits of DNA from the hotel room and perform tests in minutes on 'the right' sample and then just happen to have the 'immaculate conception' data base on hand.
If the methdology is done right then carbon dating is accurate. It's about physics and 'has to' be right. It's not the dating that's the issue but what's being dated. Sure, there might be an ancient garbage site but fire, etc. might have swept through a hundred times in the meantime...birds pooped...other animals flora died...stuff moved around by floods, storms, etc. How much integrity is there is the original material?
| http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/5111-how-accurate-carbon-dating.html
And I am not talking about Christian rebuttals whose main aim is to back up Creation (while one could argue that Science's main aim is to rebut Creation!).
A book I found very interesting is called Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky which discusses the phenomenon of finding prehistoric animal bones in the earth's layers that are geographically far removed from those animal's natural habitat (based on analyses of the food these animals actually ate, etc.). He basically posits that an enormous, earth-shattering phenomenon (ie. the Mabul) essentially shook up the earth and cast all sorts of matter in all sorts of layers and locations. I know that his book is also probably considered controversial (isn't everything?!), but since we are finite human beings applying our finite knowledge in a finite universe created by an Infinite Being, I just do the best I can. |
Carbon dating is only accurate up to about 40,000 years, and is therefore never used for dinosaur fossils.
(Considering it is regarded as fairly accurate up to 40,000 years though, begs the question about how it is possible that scientists have found human skeletons with intact DNA more than 10,000 years old....)
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
Ruchel
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 8:36 am
| chani8 wrote: | | People think that Bereshes was literally 24 hour days??? My chumash states that Ramban notes that we cannot understand the process of creation. So far, science agrees with Ramban. To this day, we don't know exactly what happened. No contradictions. Unless you actually think the day and night were 24 hour periods, which only gan aged kids might believe. |
Yes, even some MO teach that.
And some yeshivish don't.
To some the bones were there from previous destroyed worlds.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
↑
Scrabble123
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 8:37 am
| imasoftov wrote: | | Stars? Please cite your sources for that. |
Off topic but dark matter also impacts the gravitational pull of planets and stars in the solar system - maybe even more than actual, regular matter. I just read a very interesting article about that in a magazine, but I don't remember which (National Geographic has one that is very simple, but this article was more complex scientifically).
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 8:43 am
| PinkFridge wrote: | So if we go with the metaphor, and say that the 6 days weren't 144 hours are we avoiding the problem? This is fine with me. It doesn't affect how I relate to G-d or keep His mitzvos.
And you ask why He'd create a world that causes people to come faulty conclusions. Some people question how a loving G-d can allow horror to happen; that disproves His existence to them just as easily... |
I've never R heard anyone say 6 days were 6 actual days even boys and girls in Satmar learn that each day was like100 or 1000 years then add to that that a day might not have been 24 hours. There are sources in Zohar andother mefwrshim that clearly state a day is not what we considere aday
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
↑
DrMom
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 8:46 am
| Ruchel wrote: | Yes, even some MO teach that.
And some yeshivish don't.
To some the bones were there from previous destroyed worlds. |
What "previous destroyed worlds?"
"Worlds" on planet Earth, or things from other planets?
What does this mean??
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
↑
gp2.0
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 9:09 am
| yogabird wrote: | To everyone that is saying the six days of creation are not meant to be taken literally: where are you getting this from?
I was always under the impression that the Torah was written expressly for humans for us to understand and learn from, and as orthodox jews we believe that every (other?)account therein actually happened exactly as described.
Also, if you think this has something to do with human perception of time, how do you understand the use of the words evening and morning, before even the sun and moon were put out? |
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
This is a really interesting article that may answer your questions.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
↑
PinkFridge
↓
|
Mon, Feb 16 2015, 9:22 am
| Miri7 wrote: | Dinosaurs love and died. What's left are their bones.
The creation stories in Bereshit are not meant to be understood literally. |
But "Dinosaurs love" is? 
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
