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

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 11 12 13 20 21 22 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Wed, Sep 26 2007, 2:40 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

If you want to maintain that min != species (something I'm perfectly willing to consider), then please define what it is. How can we evaluate what the MC wrote if we can't define it?

Tammy

if your willing to consider that a min is the same as a species, then why are you arguing?

besides, moteks point was that a min is NOT the same as a species. why are you twisting her words?

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Wed, Sep 26 2007, 2:43 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

I do think it is something other than a specific species; the anti-religious view of Noah's ark has always been something along the lines of "do you know how many kinds of _________, there are?"

while I agree with you that a min is probably one species im kind of curious what diff it makes what antireligious people think? the animals all fit by a nes. all the owls fit by nes, all the tigers fit by nes, all the dogs (with all the differnet types - collies, hot-dogs, german shepards, and so on), all the cats, etc. all fit by nes. if they refuse to believe its a nes, what diff does it make to us?

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Mon, Oct 08 2007, 6:49 pm

from this weeks jewishpress, proving that the sun (and the restof the universe) go around the earth:

Quote:

The Torah’s Geocentricism
Reader Avi Goldstein (“Defending Slifkin,” letters September 19) stated that “Galileo was correct, that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.” Yet geocentricism is totally in accord with current scientific thinking:

“We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw, out of physical and mathematical necessity” – Sir Fred Hoyle.

Einstein himself stated: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.”

According to the Torah, the Earth was the first physical object created. The Sun, Moon and stars were only created on the fourth day, to serve a pre-existing Earth. The simplest explanation for the zero-velocity result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. and all the other failures to detect the Earth’s purported 67,000 mph velocity around the Sun, is that the Earth really is stationary.

Even the arch-atheist Bertrand Russell admitted, “Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made.”

Nowhere does the Tanach attribute any diurnal or annual motion to the Earth. Hashem writes what He means and means what He writes. When Yehoshua commanded the Sun and Moon to stand still, he did not say “Earth, stop your rotation.”

Mach’s Principle shows that a universe going around the Earth every 24 hours will produce exactly the same effects as Foucault’s Pendulum, Coriolis forces, earth bulge, weather patterns etc., as an Earth rotating in its axis every 24 hours.

The Maharal, the Baal HaTanya, the Ma’aseh Tuviyah, the Mateh Dan, R. Yonoson Eibeshutz, R. Nachman of Breslov, the Sefer Habris, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, etc., were all familiar with the theory of Copernicus, yet rejected it in favor of the geocentricism of the Tanach and Chazal.

Amnon Goldberg

Safed, Israel

so what do you science-worshippers have to say to that?

↑ faigie ↓

Mon, Oct 08 2007, 7:15 pm

the problem with his lengthly reply, is that we now can fly out into space and see the planets rotate and revolve.
by the way, calling people science worshipers, when we are all shomer torah and mitzvot is extremely rude.

Clarissa ↓

Mon, Oct 08 2007, 7:39 pm

Sue DaNym wrote:

so what do you science-worshippers have to say to that?

I resent being called a science WORSHIPPER because I believe in certain scientific theories.

Chani

Mon, Oct 08 2007, 8:07 pm

I noticed over shabbos that Rabbi S.R. Hirsch's commentary to Bereishis says specifically that min = species. I'm away from home at the moment, but I'll quote him directly sometime in the next day or two.

↑ Motek ↓

Tue, Oct 09 2007, 9:54 am

TammyTammy wrote:

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.

There is a book called "Mysteries of Creation" by Rabbi Dovid Brown, published by Targum/Feldheim. He has an entire chapter devoted to "The Summit of the World" which is from page 309-364. I will copy just a few lines:

Quote:

".. we need no longer be troubled by the problems which began this chapter, understanding how our Sages assert Eretz Yisrael to be the highest place on earth and the Beis Ha'Mikdash to be the highest point in E.Y. How can there be a highest point at all? Since the earth is a globe, the highest spot is relative... Therefore we can only determine a high point by ascertaining which spot is the center of attention. On the earthly globe, the center is the site of the Beis Ha'Mikdash, for from there the world was created; that is the only spot that is firmly anchored to the body of the earth; and that is the spot that is directly connected by a very consequential pipeline to the source of energy and of existence. Therefore, by the nature of a globe, that spot is higher than all others. The fact that Mt. Everest sticks out from the surface more than any other spot is beside the point. It's mere 29,028 feet are insignificant compared to the diameter of the earth, and in any case point not upward but off to one side. The center of the world is the Beis Ha'Mikdash and that is the top.

there is no point in asking questions on these few lines when, as I noted, the chapter is dozens of pages long, if you or anybody is interested, you can read the entire thing

I'll just say that 1) when he refers to being firmly anchored, he is talking about the Evven Ha'Shesiya, the Foundation Stone, from which the world was created 2) he is talking about the physical reality 3) I don't vouch for his conclusions, although he has haskamos for his work. The point in quoting him is to show that Torah scholars have addressed this question and have concluded that it means the physical reality.

↑ faigie ↓

Tue, Oct 09 2007, 10:34 am

Im still waiting for an apology from Sue on the very rude comment she made concerning 'science worshipers"
- btw is there a way to block someone?

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Tue, Oct 09 2007, 10:57 am

you have it, faigie. ill admit I was over the top with the comment. I ask for your mechila as well as from anyone else who was offended.

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Tue, Oct 09 2007, 2:25 pm

just to be clear im only apologizing for the scienceworshipper remark. im not apologizing for posting rabbi goldbergs letter and for insisting that it proves that the torah is correct.

↑ BeershevaBubby ↓

Thu, Oct 11 2007, 3:07 pm

Sue DaNym wrote:

just to be clear im only apologizing for the scienceworshipper remark. im not apologizing for posting rabbi goldbergs letter and for insisting that it proves that the torah is correct.

Yeah because everything you read on the internet must be true Rolling Eyes

Well in yesterday's Jewish Press were a whole bunch of rebuttals to Amnon Goldberg's letter which can be seen here

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Sun, Oct 14 2007, 5:12 pm

Thank you, Kmelion. I've been away for a few days and have not had a chance to respond to this thread.

Tammy

↑ Sue DaNym ↓

Tue, Oct 16 2007, 12:32 pm

yeah I readthe letters. im not convinced. only one of them even claims to have any expertise in teh area, and his degree is from "yeshiva" university. and even he doesnt really disprove what r. goldberg states he just says that the purpose of one of the experiments was wrong. to me it crystal clear that the torah is right and science is wrong here (and everywhere).

↑ hadasa ↓

Thu, Oct 18 2007, 6:40 am

I understand those posters who took offense at the term "science worshippers" and I'm not justifying the use of the term, but BeHashgachah Pratis I recently read the book "Return" by Professor Herman Branover, where he similarly refers to the "deification" of science where when you say "scientists say...." then people take these statements as absolute truth, while they have difficulty ascribing absolute truth to "Torah says...." .

roza

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 3:50 am

I know this discussion will never end. Smile

I would like to point out that the following is written in the foreword to THE MIDRASH SAYS (1st volume) on page IX:

In the partial list of axioms with regards to midrashim, one of them:

Quote:

The Sages often conceal profound moral issues by seemingly debating scientific principles which were accepted in their times. In reality, they were not concerned with the validity of the scientific rules, but rather with the moral lessons behind them.

↑ mali ↓

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 7:24 pm

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.

The torah itself gives a very clear count of years. This isn't any human being's assumption. Open up a Chumash Bereishis (Genesis) and do a quick calculation of the years according to the generations listed, and the number of years each one lived till the next one was born. We don't "claim" anything. We have the strongest basis a person can possibly have.

↑ Motek ↓

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 8:07 pm

and see Rambam, hilchos shemitta, chapter 10, halacha 2 where he writes that in the year 2503 from Creation, from Rosh Hashana after the "birth" of Adam Ha'Rishon, which was the 2nd year since creation, they began to count (to know when Shemita was and Yovel)

don't see how that fits with your understanding of Age of the Universe and now that it's after Rosh Hashana, can you tell us how you worked out the ha'yom haras olam line in the liturgy this year?

↑ hadasa ↓

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 10:04 am

The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote that to state that the counting of years is not exact, is to C"V cast in doubt the validity of all Gittin written throughout the ages, since they all state "x number of years from the Creation of the world", and a Get that has any false information on it is not valid.

You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 1:52 pm

hadasa wrote:

One more time: Not everyone holds by the Lubatvitch Rebbe.

It is a conventional method of measurement and in no way affects the gittin even if it isn't an exact measurement of time since creation. It affords us a way of knowing when historically the event took place, not necessarily when it terms of creation.

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 3:10 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

hadasa wrote:

Your holding or not holding by the Lubavitcher Rebbe doesn't change the validity of hadasa's post. When dealing with Gittin, everything has to be exact to the T. For example, I know of a Rav who does Gittin in Monsey, and his office is on the border of Monsey and Spring Valley. Most people consider it Monsey, but mailing-wise it's already Spring Valley. When he writes a Get, he does it in a different office, so that there shouldn't be even the slightest doubt as to the venue.
Same applies to years. If there would be a safek-sfeika that our count of years isn't accurate, then Halachically it wouldn't be valid for a Get, and that would ch"v result in lots of mamzerim r"l. Our Batei Din would never take the chance of such a thing happening.

Page 12 of 22

Previous 1 2 3 11 12 13 20 21 22 Next