Science vs Torah. And the winner is....

↑ hadasa ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 1:35 am

TammyTammy wrote:

hadasa wrote:

Tammy - that's if you take for granted that the earth revolves at all! But if it is the sun that goes around the earth...than what does it matter where you consider the "top"?

I was assuming that Motek agrees that the Earth rotates (you did mean "rotates" not "revolves," right? The earth rotation causes day and not, not its revolution).

Yes, I meant rotates - sorry! But I'm not sure that the Rambam agrees the Earth rotates. I asked my husband a few times to explain to me how the Rambam views the changes of day and night and the seasons, but honestly, I didn't quite understand it. Perhaps Motek can illuminate this issue.

Quote:

Concerning dinosaurs - the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote several letters on this topic. Basically, he says that there is no way of knowing how a certain material will react in extreme conditions of weather, temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc. All the scientists have observed is under current conditions. So it is possible that under extreme conditions, certain things can, in a relatively short time, undergo changes to make it seem that they are millions of years old. The Rebbe, as far as I have seen, does not explicitly mention the Mabul, but it is possible that that is what he means, or maybe some other period before the Mabul.

You may disagree, but I defer to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's superior knowledge of both Torah and (Lehavdil) science.

Was the moon buried in the Mabul as well? Moon rocks have been dated to billions of years.

Kal Vachomer - how can they be sure the moon ages according to what has been observed on Earth? And although the moon was not buried in the Mabul, its natural order was suspended, which could have caused changes as well.

There's another possibility, also mentioned by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, that the earth (and, I would assume, the moon) was created in a way that it looks like billions of years old. Just like Adam was created an adult (in his twenties? thirties?) so the world was created in its billions!

Quote:

Tammy - do you believe the Mabul happened? Krias Yam Suf? Matan Torah? Shemesh BeGiveon?
All these things contradict science, which says such things cannot happen. Yet the Torah says they did. Do you not take these things literally, either, CH"V?

Yes, I believe that these things happened. And I'll tell you the difference.

Krias Yam Suf was a miracle. It was a suspension of the laws of nature as we know it for a brief period of time, which allowed a remarkable supernatural event to occur.

But that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing the very nature of the permenant earth. Whether or not EY is higher than Mt. Everest has nothing to do with a miraculous occurrence. Whether or not dodos are extinct or not has nothing to do with miracles -- either nature allows animals to become extinct or it doesn't.

I can accept a short suspension of nature for a miraculous event to happen. But stating that the permanent nature of nature (heh) is not as we observe it is something else and much harder to swallow.

Tammy

[/quote]

OK, I understand what you're saying. Although I do not agree that science is infallible in anything (definitely not more infallible than the Sages), there is a difference between what is readily visible (I.e. altitude) and conjecture as to what was in the past (I.e. evolution or the age of the world.) I happen to agree with you that EY as the highest point probably does not mean altitude above sea level. Rashi lived in France. I'm sure he was familiar with mountains that reach higher than any point in EY. Perhaps there is another type of "altitude" which we are not familiar with. As for extinction of species - how can you be positive about that? It's much easier to prove that something does exist than that it doesn't.

Liorah61

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 5:59 am

Sue DaNym wrote:

amother wrote:

Quote:

there are lots of things that arent mentioned in the torah that exist.

Aahhhh, Sue, I knew that if you continued long enough, you'd have enough rope to hang yourself, and now you've done it. Wink

Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world. The Torah predated the existence of the universe, and everything in creation is in the Torah. We just have to know where and how to find it.
Therefore, your argument is totally wrong, and by extension, your entire thesis is wrong.

huh? did I miss something? I never said that everything that exists has to be explicitly stated in the torah. obviously I dont believe that because here I am typing on a computer that isnt explicitly mentioned.

Quote:

Interesting, too, that you believe the words of some Portugese or Dutch sailors (you don't even know), but believe that a huge organisation like NASA is fabricating a well publicised and documented mission, simply to mess with our brains.

the diff is that the sailors had no reason to deceive us. nasa does -- and its not just to "mes with our brains." they do it for one of two reasons (or maybe even both) 1 - bcuz the yetzer hara/satan is trying to fool us and 2 - bcuz they get a lot of funding. if they were found out to be frauds, the whole operation would be shut down. so they have a reason to continue lying. the sailors, however, had no reason to lie about dodos.

Quote:

Sue, go learn something. Right now you make less sense than my 3-year old.

hey, ive been respectful of everyone in this thread. there is no reason to insult me.

Sue DaNym wrote:

Motek wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

Did you ever consider the fact that Rashi never visited Eretz Yisroel or Mt. Everest? Did you ever consider the fact that maybe Rashi wasn't speaking from his mesorah but rather from his own scientific knowledge, which, coming from the science of the day was lacking (with respect to our current scientific knowledge)?

It means that you have no idea who Rashi was and how his commentary was written. Rashi was a Rishon and his commentary has hundreds of super-commentaries written on it, many of which analyze not only the precise wording of what he said, but analyze what he didn't say as well as which words ("divrei ha'maschil") he says his commentary on.

Rashi's commentary is not about mesorah nor about the science of the day. It was written with ruach ha'kodesh. Once again, another reason to be shocked on Imamother.com. It boggles the mind.

thank u motek. im amazed at her stubborness and her denail of torah. I sometimes seriously wonder if shes frum atall. wouldnt she have the status of a kofer?

Quote:

tammy wrote:

does that mean that you agree with Sue that Eretz Yisroel is higher physically than Mt. Everest?

I would have to know what the commentaries say. I asked two people and both said it could be understood physically as meaning the top of the globe. In other words, rather than show the earth as we do, with the North Pole on top, it could be E.Y. is on top. But I haven't seen a source for that.

or it could simply be that eretz yisroel is higher after all.

↑ amother ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 6:46 am

In order to argue intelligently on this thread, you really need to read up on what you arguing against, ladies. If you are scientifically challenged to the point where rotation and revolution of the earth are confused in your mind, please do some research before posting. Otherwise your posts are simply embarrassing to read.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 6:52 am

amother wrote:

Rotation and revolution are easily mixed up in many people's minds. Even when they know the difference, it is easy to misstate. Rebut the facts, not errors in language use.

↑ amother ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 8:33 am

Quote:

Am I correct in that those posters who think Chazal made mistakes and that Rishonim's commentaries contain errors are Modern Orthodox?

Quote:

Rebut the facts, not errors in language use.

I would add:
Rebut the facts, don't marginalise the dissenting opiners.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 9:07 am

amother wrote:

Quote:

Am I correct in that those posters who think Chazal made mistakes and that Rishonim's commentaries contain errors are Modern Orthodox?

Quote:

Rebut the facts, not errors in language use.

I would add:
Rebut the facts, don't marginalise the dissenting opiners.

agreed.
Regardless of where we hold and what we believe regarding science/Torah, we are all Jews here, and Torahdik Jews. No of us is against the Torah or disregards the Torah or believes the Torah is anything less than the word of G-d.

↑ hadasa ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 9:29 am

amother wrote:

If my having momentarily confused the terms disqualifies in your mind any valid points I may have made, then you're right, I'm wasting my time. I'm glad some people are ready to look a bit beyond that.

↑ Piper

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 2:01 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

There is no top in space except in relationship to something else.
We call the "North" the top, but this isn't scientifically accurate.

The earth is currently tilted towards the sun during the northern summer and away from it during the winter (with the northern most point currently pointing at Polaris. That will change over time, so the earth will point at Vega, but that is thousands of years into the future.)

One could as easily claim as top the point that is "closest" or pointed most directly at the sun.

One could also claim that we should draw a line throgh the earth so that the line is perpindcular to a line through the sun that reaches the earth, assertingone point the TOP. This wouldn't be at the poles.

We could claim that the top of the earth is the point that is directed toward the center of the universe. I don't know that we know where that is yet.

In any case, I do not think the "top" of the earth is, necessarily, a physical place, but a spiritual place.

There is no fight between science and G-d. Hashem created science. Hashem set the rules in motion. Science, and what science discovers through careful investigation reveals the hidden laws of nature that G-d set in motion. There is no conflict. That some scientist and some religious people see a problem is neither the fault of science nor Torah. It is the fault of people.

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 4:16 pm

hadasa wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

hadasa wrote:

Tammy - that's if you take for granted that the earth revolves at all! But if it is the sun that goes around the earth...than what does it matter where you consider the "top"?

I was assuming that Motek agrees that the Earth rotates (you did mean "rotates" not "revolves," right? The earth rotation causes day and not, not its revolution).

Quote:

Was the moon buried in the Mabul as well? Moon rocks have been dated to billions of years.

Quote:

OK, I understand what you're saying. Although I do not agree that science is infallible in anything (definitely not more infallible than the Sages), there is a difference between what is readily visible (I.e. altitude) and conjecture as to what was in the past (I.e. evolution or the age of the world.) I happen to agree with you that EY as the highest point probably does not mean altitude above sea level. Rashi lived in France. I'm sure he was familiar with mountains that reach higher than any point in EY. Perhaps there is another type of "altitude" which we are not familiar with. As for extinction of species - how can you be positive about that? It's much easier to prove that something does exist than that it doesn't.[/quote]

Yeesh. Too many quotes in quotes in quotes gives me headaches when I have to try and code it so that it looks alright... and I do coding for a living! So, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to respond here on the bottom.

First of all, the moon is composed of the same basic elements as here on earth. Therefore it is logical to state that the material ages the same way. Besides, stating something like "the moon doesn't age" is just silly anyway... everything ages as time passes.

Secondly, you don't know that anything happened to the moon during the Flood. You can assume lots of things, but there is really no evidence that the moon was affected by the mabul... just that the earth was. Even quoting the pasuk of "yom v'livlah lo yishbosu" doesn't mean that anything happened to the moon, just that it did not appear on earth for whatever reason. And if you're going to tell me that maybe it did... well then, now you're speculating. You can also speculate that invisible space aliens come down and paint stripes on zebras, and sure, I can't disprove it, but I'll still agree with the hypothesis that the stripes occur naturally.

As for the "old appearing" earth... well, that's known as the Ompholos theory. Once you invoke that, however, you leave yourself just as open to Last Thursdayism.

The Torah allows us to view the evidence that we see before us. If we see a body lying in the field murdered, we can use the available evidence and perform the eglah arufa ritual. Well, hold on... maybe space aliens put a lifelike dummy there? Maybe he's a golem? The bottom line is that we look at the evidence that we have before us. So, even if HaShem created an "old world," it's then still not wrong to say that it's billions of years old -- we simply follow the evidence.

In any event, there are yet further problems with this approach. You want to maintain that HaShem created an old earth 5767 years ago? Fine, so He created dinosaur bones in the ground and light from stars that never existed and oil that comes from life that never happened. But what about the cave painting at Lescoux? Did HaShem paint those too? There are records of places where civilization goes back continuously over 8000 years... did HaShem create the remnants of those civilizaitons? And then, when the first settlers reached those places, they neatly fit themselves into the cultures depicted in the ruins?! It just doesn't make any sense.

Lastly, I never stated that science in infallible. Indeed, the scientific method is built on the very fact that anything that is scientific has to be falsifiable and can be disproven. If it can't, then it's not scientific.

Certainly science progresses and new things are discovered about the world. However, while science does progress and new things are discovered, there are some basic scientific theories that are simply not going to go away -- and among them are the age of the universe, evolution (not including abiogenesis) and heliocentrism.

Tammy

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 4:18 pm

Motek wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

Krias Yam Suf was a miracle. It was a suspension of the laws of nature as we know it for a brief period of time, which allowed a remarkable supernatural event to occur.

How do you understand the mabul - for a year, the heavenly bodies did not operate. How do you understand the sun standing still for Moshe and for Yehoshua - what happened with the other heavenly bodies in relation to the sun when it stood still?

Didn't you read what I wrote -- the mabul was also a temporary suspension in the laws of nature. I can accept a miracle that involves HaShem stepping in and overriding His rules. But we're not discussing miracles which, by definition, are an exception to the laws of nature, but the very laws of nature themselves.

Tammy

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Fri, Sep 07 2007, 4:24 pm

Motek wrote:

Kmelion wrote:

When there are 2,3, 4, 10 different opinions on what a passage means, never mind their scientific theories, how can they all be true?

Regarding statements in the Talmud, Chazal say, "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim" - these and these are the words of the living G-d. Do you accept this statement of Chazal?

That statement has nothing to do with the literal factuality of what Rashi stated. After all, there are plenty of things that we accept as "divrei Elokim Chaim" even though they aren't literally and factually true.

In plenty of cases where one Midrash says A happened and another Midrash says B happened and the two are mutually exclusive, we still say "Eilu V'Eilu," but they can't both be factually and literally correct. A good example is Iyov. According to some opinions he was an advisor to Pharoah in Egypt. According to others, he never existed. Well, either Iyov existed or he didn't. You can have it both ways. We still say "eilu v'eilu" on both opinions... but they're still not *both* factually true; and no amount of wishing otherwise will make it so.

Tammy

↑ hadasa ↓

Sat, Sep 08 2007, 3:50 pm

Tammy - I did not mean the moon doesn't age - I meant the moon does not necessarily age at the same speed and in the same way things currently age on earth. Even if the material is the same, there's no denying that (non?)atmospheric pressure and temperatures are very different.

I agree with you that we generally draw conclusions according to what we see, except for when this goes against Torah. According to many Gedolim, the claim that the world is older than 5767, is against Torah. True, there are Orthodox Rabbis who accept the "six periods, not 24-hour-days" explanation, but others reject it. The Lubavitcher Rebbe has said that this would undermine the whole meaning of Shabbos as the seventh day. You don't have to accept his opinion as fact, but neither should you ridicule those who do.

Quote:

As for the "old appearing" earth... well, that's known as the Ompholos theory. Once you invoke that, however, you leave yourself just as open to Last Thursdayism.

Please excuse my ignorance and translate the above sentence.

I'm also not familiar with the cave paintings and other civilizations you mentioned (hey, I never claimed to be the greatest expert on this subject!) but I have a question for you - when do you think the Jewish people started counting the years to the creation of the world?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Sat, Sep 08 2007, 4:11 pm

Hadasa,

I am assuming that Tammy was referring to this:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1154.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

As far as why we date from creation, don't some authorities hold the time is dated from Shabbat?

↑ Ruchel ↓

Sat, Sep 08 2007, 4:35 pm

That's Lascaux. Smile

My mom went there, a LOOOOONG time ago when she was studying archaelogy. It's not opened to the public anymore, only to university students and professionals.

↑ hadasa ↓

Sat, Sep 08 2007, 4:50 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

Thank you, HindaRochel. Actually, there is some truth to those, as in "Hamechadesh betuvo bechol Yom tamid", that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, with its history. So how do I know we weren't all just created last Thursday? Because the Torah tells me so.

Even if time were dated from Shabbat, that wouldn't answer Tammy's claims about older civilizations.

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Mon, Sep 10 2007, 10:51 am

hadasa wrote:

Yes, I grant you that conditions in a vacuum *might* cause materials to age at a different rate than they do here on earth. But do you have any evidence to back that up?

Quote:

As for the "old appearing" earth... well, that's known as the Ompholos theory. Once you invoke that, however, you leave yourself just as open to Last Thursdayism.

Please excuse my ignorance and translate the above sentence.

Sorry... I should have been clearer.

If you're going to posit that the world was created 5767 years ago with the appearance of billions of years of age (the Ompholos theory), then what's to stop someone from asserting that the world was created last Thursday, with the appearance of billions of years of age?

Quote:

I'm also not familiar with the cave paintings and other civilizations you mentioned (hey, I never claimed to be the greatest expert on this subject!) but I have a question for you - when do you think the Jewish people started counting the years to the creation of the world?

Well, they obviously didn't start from year 1, as there was no Jewish people then. But just because we claim to have to have an unbroken count doesn't, in fact, make it so.

Tammy

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Mon, Sep 10 2007, 10:53 am

hadasa wrote:

I agree with you that we generally draw conclusions according to what we see, except for when this goes against Torah. According to many Gedolim, the claim that the world is older than 5767, is against Torah. True, there are Orthodox Rabbis who accept the "six periods, not 24-hour-days" explanation, but others reject it. The Lubavitcher Rebbe has said that this would undermine the whole meaning of Shabbos as the seventh day. You don't have to accept his opinion as fact, but neither should you ridicule those who do.

Fair enough.. perhaps I went a bit over the top. My apologies.

Tammy

↑ hadasa ↓

Mon, Sep 10 2007, 11:37 am

TammyTammy wrote:

[
Well, they obviously didn't start from year 1, as there was no Jewish people then. But just because we claim to have to have an unbroken count doesn't, in fact, make it so.

Tammy

So what significance (if any) do you see in the number 5768? In the words "Hayom haras olam" on Rosh Hashanah?

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Mon, Sep 10 2007, 11:45 am

hadasa wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

[
Well, they obviously didn't start from year 1, as there was no Jewish people then. But just because we claim to have to have an unbroken count doesn't, in fact, make it so.

Tammy

So what significance (if any) do you see in the number 5768? In the words "Hayom haras olam" on Rosh Hashanah?

Fair question, and, to be perfectly honest, I'm not certain that I have an answer for you. I suppose one can posit that Creation (which can be defined as the Big Bang) happened on RH (especially when you consider that time began at that point as well). As for the number 5768... I'll be perfectly frank and tell you that I don't know.

Nonetheless, despite that, that doesn't really change anything. Whether the world is 5768 years old or longer is independent of my personal feelings or beliefs on the matter.

Tammy

↑ hadasa ↓

Mon, Sep 10 2007, 2:30 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

Nonetheless, despite that, that doesn't really change anything. Whether the world is 5768 years old or longer is independent of my personal feelings or beliefs on the matter.

Tammy

True, and I believe the world really is 5768 years old, notwithstanding scientists' claims to the contrary.
I'm still interested in hearing your personal feelings and beliefs, though.

If Hayom Haras Olam would mean the Big Bang - you mean that would have happened on Rosh Hashanah billions of years ago? According to your understanding, that the earth orbits around the sun - was that 365 days from the first Big Bang? Because otherwise, the date of Rosh hashanah is meaningless.

Whoops, the soup's boilng over - gotta run-