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 14 15 16 20 21 22 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Tue, Oct 30 2007, 12:14 am

mali wrote:

We're not discussing the basic idea of evolution-progression. Naturally, the world has progressed over the ages and no one will try arguing that. But this isn't the 'evolution' referred to in this thread.

What we're debating here is Darwin's theory of evolution and concept of origins. This doesn't comply with Torah at all.

According to you. According to me and what I learned it dovetails beautifully.

So don't believe, why would I care? Just, as I have said before, don't insinuate that I am kineged Torah or don't believe that Hashem is the Master and Creator of all.

And no I'm not going to explain again.

↑ hadasa ↓

Tue, Oct 30 2007, 7:02 am

Hinda Rochel, could you please indicate where you explain your understanding of Hashem's creation of Adam?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Tue, Oct 30 2007, 7:23 am

I'm not searching for it..it is within this thread.

↑ hadasa ↓

Tue, Oct 30 2007, 7:41 am

Sorry, I didn't see it.

BTW, Motek, thank you. I hereby retract my retraction..... Wink

↑ zeldy ↓

Tue, Oct 30 2007, 3:00 pm

I think there is a lot more to the get issue. There are conditional gittin as I'm sure you all know, where the get does not even go into effect until a future event transpires. So I have difficulty understanding how a disagreement over a date would make a get null and void.

Frankly, the gittin shouldn't be a problem because the marriage kesuba also has the dates on it, so the marriages would be null to begin with.

↑ hadasa ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 7:27 am

As I mentioned above, the laws of accuracy in Gittin are much, much more complex than in Kesubos. A Yud more or less will not invalidate a Kesubah. A Rav may have no problem issuing a Kesubah in the same city where he will not issue a Get.

A condition which is clearly delineated is not the same as an inaccuracy.

↑ TzenaRena ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 7:48 am

zeldy wrote:

Quote:

I don't know much about gittin, but it doesn't seem to me like conditional gittin are done nowadays. ( do you mean like the ones in the time of Dovid Hamelech, that were given before soldiers went out to war?). As hadasa pointed out,

Quote:

A condition which is clearly delineated is not the same as an inaccuracy.

Quote:

So I have difficulty understanding how a disagreement over a date would make a get null and void.

So do you also have difficulty understanding how a "disagreement" over the spelling of a name could render a get invalid?

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 9:32 am

A misspelling of the name would render a get invalid
because the name could then be seen as referring to a different person.

The date however can't be seen as referring to any other date in time, even if the world is much older than 5768 years, because the reference is the same for everyone in the Jewish world...(Well at least in the frum Ashkenazi world. Do the Sephardim use the same type of get? When did the current form develop?)

ie, we can measure the date in terms of now. I can look at a date written on a get and know that because teh year is 5765 the woman was divorced three years earlier.

This is probably also why the current form is used; because to state something else might confuse the issue.

↑ mali ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 10:13 am

a- it's talking about the name of a place, not a person, and no one will confuse a place written with an alef at the end instead of a heh or vice versa with a different city.

b- do you have a source for that or is that your personal assumption?

↑ Motek ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 7:59 pm

zeldy wrote:

There are conditional gittin as I'm sure you all know, where the get does not even go into effect until a future event transpires. So I have difficulty understanding how a disagreement over a date would make a get null and void.

And those gittin have to be written just as precisely as gittin that go into effect immediately.

hindarochel - perhaps you've posted it in this thread or in the Slifkin thread, I don't recall. When you refer to the way you learned it, who did you learn it from - what are these rabbis' names? Can you tell us something about them?

miriam ↓

Wed, Oct 31 2007, 10:17 pm

It is a long article, but it sheds a new light on the debate.

http://docs.google.com/View?do.....hsk5n

↑ Motek ↓

Thu, Nov 01 2007, 1:56 pm

miriam wrote:

It is a long article, but it sheds a new light on the debate.

http://docs.google.com/View?do.....hsk5n

It gives his secular credentials but not his yeshiva background and Torah credentials.

I skipped to the end where he writes:

Quote:

it has been suggested, using a clever play with words, that, even if someone says that the earth orbits around the sun, it is not a contradiction to saying that the sun orbits around the earth. Unfortunately, this is a bad and manipulative distortion of relativity.

It is still a perplexing mystery trying to understand how intelligent people today can still believe in the imaginative Greek model which is contrary to the Torah and violates many God-given laws of physics.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe has both scientific as well as Torah credentials. Since this scientist dismisses the Rebbe's view as clever word play and as a "bad and manipulative distortion" of the theory of Relativity, I reject his paper. I am not knowledgeable enough to prove the author wrong, but knowing that the Rebbe negated his view on scientific and Torah grounds, is good enough for me.

And if he calls the Rambam's view "contrary to Torah," then he is a mechutzaf.

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Nov 01 2007, 9:57 pm

Motek, you stumbled. Not only stumbled, but probably also made a fool of yourself. Did you bother to read the article? Here is a Lubavicher scientist who proves that the old age of the world and the evolution theories are nonsense, and you flat out reject it? Did you read what the Rambam himself said about the source of his model?

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Nov 01 2007, 10:18 pm

INCOMING!

↑ BeershevaBubby ↓

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 2:00 am

I posted the link to my blog to get a response from friends who are more knowledgeable than I in both science (my husband has a degree in physics) and in Torah.

Here is what they had to say regarding the article:

Paraphrase of Adin Steinsaltz: Most people who see a conflict b/w Torah & science are using bad Torah, bad science or both.

The first, most primitive, RNA or DNA sequence had to get encoded correctly all at once, with no mistakes, or else it would not be able to absorb food, reproduce itself, and survive. It would not have time to develop slowly. I stopped there - he's disqualified himself from serious consideration with that statement. I arguably should have stopped earlier - when he said that fewer than a 100 people had the deep knowledge of all of physics and life sciences. If deep means thorough/complete there isn't anyone on Earth who qualifies. To think there are such people indicates he's just taken a primitive belief in the gedolim and decided there are 'science gedolim' as well.

There's no such thing as "Daas Science" - deep knowledge of physics does not automatically give you deep understanding of biology

he does not have a deep knowledge of physics, modern or otherwise. And I lost count of the number of straw men and random assertions that were not backed up with any sort of evidence.

Science is looking for empirical data and falsifiable theories. Any theory which includes an excuse as to why any counter evidence will not be good counter evidence, effectively precluding disproof, is a lousy theory from a scientific perspective. The existence or (Heaven forbid) non-existence of G-d makes for lousy science. What counter evidence could possibly be found? The claim that evolution for example is a disproof of G-d's existance can be explained as an omnipotent being disguising Himself. Therefore, science cannot speak to the existence of G-d. That is theology's job.

↑ Motek ↓

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 12:01 pm

Ms. Anonymous - I stand by what I said. A Lubavitcher scientist who dismisses the Rebbe's view? Gimme a break Rolling Eyes

↑ amother ↓

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 12:43 pm

Motek wrote:

I stand by what I said. A Lubavitcher scientist who dismisses the Rebbe's view? Gimme a break

And the Article says:

There has been an attempt, by a controversial British scientist, to bring Einstein's theory of relativity into the discussion. The Lubavitcher Rebbe mentioned it in one of his letters, not knowing that the source is unreliable. In "special relativity", it does not matter who is moving and who is stationary. The only thing that matters is the relative motion. So, it has been argued, using a clever play with words, that, for the earth to orbit around the sun is the same as for the sun to orbit around the earth. Unfortunately, this is a distortion of relativity which was misrepresented to the Lubavitcher Rebbe by someone who did not understand relativity. The key to understanding this distortion is in the difference between "special relativity" and "general relativity". "Special relativity" is a very narrow application of relativistic theory which deals ONLY with motion on a straight line at a constant speed, without accelerations, without rotations, and without the influence of gravity. Once we add even one of these factors into the picture, (and in our case all three are present) special relativity is no longer applicable. We enter the realm of "general relativity". In "general relativity" it makes a great deal of difference who is moving and who is not. The introduction of Einstein's relativity into this discussion ignored the distinction between "special relativity" and "general relativity". The laws of physics are not subject to manipulative plays with words.

The attempt to introduce relativistic theory into the discussion also involves a built-in contradiction. One of the fundamental tenets of relativity is that nothing can move at a speed greater than the speed of light. If we try to fix the earth at the center and let the stars orbit around the earth, the stars will have to move at a speed greater than the speed of light, because of their distance. So, is relativity applicable or not? We cannot choose one half of relativity which is convenient to the argument and ignore the other half.

↑ Motek ↓

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 12:56 pm

So the Rebbe was taken in by someone who explained it wrongly to him, eh? Gimme another break. This is idiotic and highly distasteful.

↑ zeldy

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 1:02 pm

I think the rule is that only real Lubavitchers are allowed to misunderstand and/or twist the Rebbe's words. Not a fake out like this guy.

↑ amother ↓

Fri, Nov 02 2007, 1:25 pm

Zeldy, now that I *get* your sense of humor, I have to say YOU CRACK ME UP!!!!!

Rolling Laughter

Page 15 of 22

Previous 1 2 3 14 15 16 20 21 22 Next