JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: White Israelite on November 17, 2008, 03:18:18 PM
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. God is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to God? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
According to the Jewish calendar which started when Adam and Eve were created we are in the year 5769. As such we {Orthodox Jews} believe that the world was created almost 6000 years ago. There are many explanations which resolve the difference in age between science and the Torah. I will leave it to others to point you in this direction...
muman613
PS: And yes, G-d is beyond time and space... He existed before creation, continues in the act of creation, and will exist when the world no longer exists.
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
According to the Jewish calendar which started when Adam and Eve were created we are in the year 5769. As such we {Orthodox Jews} believe that the world was created almost 6000 years ago. There are many explanations which resolve the difference in age between science and the Torah. I will leave it to others to point you in this direction...
muman613
PS: And yes, G-d is beyond time and space... He existed before creation, continues in the act of creation, and will exist when the world no longer exists.
Is the orthodox belief of 6000 years contrary to our current calender though?
-
honestly..what difference does it make? 6000 years or a billion years? Dinosaurs or no dinosaurs...all I know is that this universe is perfect and this world was created so perfectly that it is impossible to deny Gd's existence.
-
Wouldn't it be exciting if they discovered that the world IS 6000 years old? :dance: There are a lot of "young earth" websites that point to various problems with the scientific theory claiming that the earth in billions of years old.
-
The Torah is not a science book. Trying to "prove" from the Torah that the world is 5769 years old is ridiculous. Most Rabbis will argue that it impossible to quantify the actual time that the six days of creation tool place since for example the sun itself had only been created in day 4.
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
The 6000 or so years are measured from when Adam was born
NOT, from creation.
So it says Nothing about the "days" prior to the creation of Adam.
a)We have a tradition that those 6 days contained eras. This was long before big bang theory, rabbis would refer to the tradition and say eras.
b)The sun was not apparent until during day 4, so there is no question that "days" 1-3 didn't have the concept of a daytime, nighttime. Even Morning and Evening, cannot have meant in relation to the sun, yet they are mentioned every day. "and it was evening, and it was morning, day x"
If we start reinterpreting the Torah in order to meet the science of today, then we are basing ourselves on science, not torah. Then when science changes, Torah is cheapened. And it's not honest to reinterpret torah in light of science so as to pretend it is saying things that it clearly isn't.
A person that interprets things SO metaphorically, and without any basis in tradition, really doesn't believe it at all and is not being honest. Like a reform minister I heard that , when asked what he thought about the truth of some nutter's religious claim, he said it is poetic, and open to interpretation, and not testable and you can't pass judgement. If every time you think science has proven something wrong, then you reinterpret the religious text more and more wildly to make it fit, then you are not reading it honestly. and you are in denial. and don't really respect the text.
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
According to the Jewish calendar which started when Adam and Eve were created we are in the year 5769. As such we {Orthodox Jews} believe that the world was created almost 6000 years ago. There are many explanations which resolve the difference in age between science and the Torah. I will leave it to others to point you in this direction...
muman613
PS: And yes, G-d is beyond time and space... He existed before creation, continues in the act of creation, and will exist when the world no longer exists.
Pretty awesome!
He always was, always is and always will be.....
Muman, do the kids ever ask who created G-d?
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
-
Wouldn't it be exciting if they discovered that the world IS 6000 years old? :dance: There are a lot of "young earth" websites that point to various problems with the scientific theory claiming that the earth in billions of years old.
Young earth creationism sites are great when I need to laugh, but not good for science.
-
Maybe this would be a good question for the Torah section. There is a big argument among Torah scholars over whether or not the earth is 6000 years old or it could be billions of years.
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
That is really hitting on more of a serious problem..
Dating of what appear to be human remains, and civilizations, that are 10,000 years old.
Yet the bible says Adam was the first man. And he was less than 6000 years ago.
One possible answer is that the dating is wrong. The environment may have been very different pre-flood , and the tests they do use extrapolation, making assumptions that aren't always accurate.
Another one is that those people were not human.
I did notice in Gerald Shroeder(one of his 2 good books, either Gen and the big bang, ), a tradition of there being creatures before Adam. Not considered man.
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr argued that the findings of civilizations are not evidence of human life. Neither are cave paintings. For example, maybe the creature was a very good artist, but he just saw something and drew it, and it was not a human creature.
It would take linguistic evidence for us to judge. And there is no linguistic evidence > 6000 years old.
-
Maybe this would be a good question for the Torah section. There is a big argument among Torah scholars over whether or not the earth is 6000 years old or it could be billions of years.
the torah section is a bit dead.. in terms of posts and discussion.
alot of the 6000 vs billions issue is of interest to christians too, it's largely a fundamental biblical question , and the general discussion section is more visible. e.g. clicking on Show Unread Posts shows the thread when there is new activity. Threads in other sections can go less noticed. There isn't a really good reason to put it in the torah section. The discussion isn't of such a Torah depth. This is just a fundamental biblical question.
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
Dating of what appear to be human remains, and civilizations, that are 10,000 years old.
Yet the bible says Adam was the first man. And he was less than 6000 years ago.
Is it possible that Adam simply represents mankind?
One possible answer is that the dating is wrong. The environment may have been very different pre-flood , and the tests they do use extrapolation, making assumptions that aren't always accurate.
Another one is that those people were not human.
There were a lot of non-human hominids, although if you saw some of them today some would probably think them human enough to make them President of the United States. It's hard to tell exactly when humans became "human" in the sense that we would think of being one of our own kind.
Some hominids apparently had fire before the rise of modern man, so they may very well have been human in a spiritual sense even if not belonging to exactly the same group as we do.
I did notice in Gerald Shroeder(one of his 2 good books, either Gen and the big bang, ), a tradition of there being creatures before Adam. Not considered man.
This was likely passed down through oral traditions among people because humans (the modern type) did live side by side with other hominids for parts of history.
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr argued that the findings of civilizations are not evidence of human life. Neither are cave paintings. For example, maybe the creature was a very good artist, but he just saw something and drew it, and it was not a human creature.
It would take linguistic evidence for us to judge. And there is no linguistic evidence > 6000 years old.
He's probably never looked at cave paintings. They're quite detailed and precise. They probably served spiritual/religious purposes and were the earliest precursors to a written alphabet. The earliest alphabets were based on animal shapes.
I think humans have been around for at least a couple hundred thousand years, possibly close to 1 million.
I don't know how you mesh it with the Bible but that's what the record says.
-
My Catholic church teaches that the world is 6000 years old. No older.
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
That is really hitting on more of a serious problem..
Dating of what appear to be human remains, and civilizations, that are 10,000 years old.
Yet the bible says Adam was the first man. And he was less than 6000 years ago.
One possible answer is that the dating is wrong. The environment may have been very different pre-flood , and the tests they do use extrapolation, making assumptions that aren't always accurate.
Another one is that those people were not human.
I did notice in Gerald Shroeder(one of his 2 good books, either Gen and the big bang, ), a tradition of there being creatures before Adam. Not considered man.
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr argued that the findings of civilizations are not evidence of human life. Neither are cave paintings. For example, maybe the creature was a very good artist, but he just saw something and drew it, and it was not a human creature.
It would take linguistic evidence for us to judge. And there is no linguistic evidence > 6000 years old.
Science has a very clear picture of the environmental changes that have occurred over the 4.6 billion years of Earth history. The tests that are used today do not rely on extrapolation, but on known chemical and psychical processes.
Cave painting were, for the most part, created by Neanderthal Man, who was one of a number of Hominid species that has evolved in the past 7 million years. Interestingly, it is somewhat unusual for only one Hominid species to exist at one time as we see today. Mostly Hominids have shared the planet with each other.
There have been many massive floods in Earth history. The rainfall that formed the oceans lasted for millions of years, The flooding that occurred at the end of the snowball Earth event and the tsunami that was triggered by the asteroid impact 65 million years ago that killed all of the non avian dinosaurs also were Major events. There were also a few ices ages to deal with.
Very recent evidence indicates that one of the genes that is critical for language in modern humans has been inherited from Neanderthal man.
All of the above is based on well proven science fact,,,you would be truly amazed by the things that are still up for debate.
I do not think that any of this is in conflict with basic Jewish thought or traditions. I think that much of the problems when reading the Bible stem from the fact that it has been rewritten over the years. this has lead to some gaps and conflict in the writting
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
Dating of what appear to be human remains, and civilizations, that are 10,000 years old.
Yet the bible says Adam was the first man. And he was less than 6000 years ago.
Is it possible that Adam simply represents mankind?
One possible answer is that the dating is wrong. The environment may have been very different pre-flood , and the tests they do use extrapolation, making assumptions that aren't always accurate.
Another one is that those people were not human.
There were a lot of non-human hominids, although if you saw some of them today some would probably think them human enough to make them President of the United States. It's hard to tell exactly when humans became "human" in the sense that we would think of being one of our own kind.
Some hominids apparently had fire before the rise of modern man, so they may very well have been human in a spiritual sense even if not belonging to exactly the same group as we do.
I did notice in Gerald Shroeder(one of his 2 good books, either Gen and the big bang, ), a tradition of there being creatures before Adam. Not considered man.
This was likely passed down through oral traditions among people because humans (the modern type) did live side by side with other hominids for parts of history.
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr argued that the findings of civilizations are not evidence of human life. Neither are cave paintings. For example, maybe the creature was a very good artist, but he just saw something and drew it, and it was not a human creature.
It would take linguistic evidence for us to judge. And there is no linguistic evidence > 6000 years old.
He's probably never looked at cave paintings. They're quite detailed and precise. They probably served spiritual/religious purposes and were the earliest precursors to a written alphabet. The earliest alphabets were based on animal shapes.
I think humans have been around for at least a couple hundred thousand years, possibly close to 1 million.
I don't know how you mesh it with the Bible but that's what the record says.
Hi
Just to help out
The first primates evolved 47 million years ago
The first "hominids" evolved about 7 million years ago.
Modern Humans are between 100 and 25o thousand years old
These numbers are all based on fossil and genetic evidence, Interestingly The earliest known life...single celled... evolved very soon after earth formed ...3.7 million years ago.
-
I don't think the cave paintings in France were done by Neanderthals. They were done by early Europeans. Neanderthal artwork tends to be different than that produced by modern style humans. They were a very similar species to modern humans but not quite the same. They lived in Europe at the same time as modern humans did. They were sort of like our cousins.
-
I don't think the cave paintings in France were done by Neanderthals. They were done by early Europeans. Neanderthal artwork tends to be different than that produced by modern style humans. They were a very similar species to modern humans but not quite the same. They lived in Europe at the same time as modern humans did. They were sort of like our cousins.
That might be true...there are some style differeces
-
The world is billions of years old. Human history is significantly younger than that.
Dating of what appear to be human remains, and civilizations, that are 10,000 years old.
Yet the bible says Adam was the first man. And he was less than 6000 years ago.
Is it possible that Adam simply represents mankind?
One possible answer is that the dating is wrong. The environment may have been very different pre-flood , and the tests they do use extrapolation, making assumptions that aren't always accurate.
Another one is that those people were not human.
There were a lot of non-human hominids, although if you saw some of them today some would probably think them human enough to make them President of the United States. It's hard to tell exactly when humans became "human" in the sense that we would think of being one of our own kind.
Some hominids apparently had fire before the rise of modern man, so they may very well have been human in a spiritual sense even if not belonging to exactly the same group as we do.
I did notice in Gerald Shroeder(one of his 2 good books, either Gen and the big bang, ), a tradition of there being creatures before Adam. Not considered man.
This was likely passed down through oral traditions among people because humans (the modern type) did live side by side with other hominids for parts of history.
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr argued that the findings of civilizations are not evidence of human life. Neither are cave paintings. For example, maybe the creature was a very good artist, but he just saw something and drew it, and it was not a human creature.
It would take linguistic evidence for us to judge. And there is no linguistic evidence > 6000 years old.
He's probably never looked at cave paintings. They're quite detailed and precise. They probably served spiritual/religious purposes and were the earliest precursors to a written alphabet. The earliest alphabets were based on animal shapes.
I think humans have been around for at least a couple hundred thousand years, possibly close to 1 million.
I don't know how you mesh it with the Bible but that's what the record says.
Hi
Just to help out
The first primates evolved 47 million years ago
The first "hominids" evolved about 7 million years ago.
Modern Humans are between 100 and 25o thousand years old
These numbers are all based on fossil and genetic evidence, Interestingly The earliest known life...single celled... evolved very soon after earth formed ...3.7 million years ago.
Didn't you mean 3.7 billion years ago?
-
This is all based on science which changes from week to week, from month to month... This is why it is difficult to believe what science is saying. In my lifetime I have seen the timeline change and theories have come and gone. I remember the ideas about Dinosaurs whether they are related to birds or reptiles... Each scientist can come up with his/her own theory and it doesn't even have to fit into the big picture.
The bottom line is that life is not a random occurrence. There is no way that such complexity can arise from absolute chaos without a creator. Arguing the length of time since the beginning of creation proves nothing. As we said earlier the length of a day can be argued about during the 1st 3 days of creation. Also it is possible that G-d created an OLD WORLD. Why is this any mystery considering according to the story of Beresheit Adam was created a full-grown man. Why couldnt Hashem create a full-grown world which appears older than it really is?
muman613
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is no linguistic evidence for us to analyse and really see the thoughts and feelings of these people.
An answer is that they are -not- considered human.
If you say they are then that does not mesh with the bible.
Another answer, is that the evidence was planted to fool us, but it's unsatisfying to many people, and when you think about "why" it's hard to see any other examples of G-d doing that, so there isn't much to strengthen that case..
This is a bigger issue than the animal fossils, because the animal fossils were created during the 6 days, which may not have been 24h, and don't count in the <6000.
The talmud does talk of other creatures that looked like man but were not man, that were around in Adam's time. It could be that it was referring to creatures like that. I don't have the ref, but gerald shroeder mentions it in one of his books.
-
6,000 years- NO. Its 5769
-
6,000 years- NO. Its 5769
he obviously meant approximately 6000 years
The argument doesn't completely change when 5769 becomes 5770.
The argument is whether the earth is ~6000 years old.
If joe blogs says that the earth is billions of years old, that's also an approximation to the billion.
The classic argument is 15 billion or 6000, and it will still be the same argument next year. And the year after. One doesn't have to retitle the thread.
The thread starter was right and sensible in the title he gave the thread.
You, were not sensible in your response. (and obviously people can use google or a calendar and find the exact jewish year).
You are also trying to sidetrack the discussion with a cheap psychological trick! That won't fool intelligent people though.
-
Wouldn't it be exciting if they discovered that the world IS 6000 years old? :dance: There are a lot of "young earth" websites that point to various problems with the scientific theory claiming that the earth in billions of years old.
it's impossible...however...i wasn't alive 6000 years ago to say otherwise...but the proof is more on the side of a billion years and not 6000 years...nevertheless, it doesn't mean Gd doesn't exist..He sure does
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
The 6000 or so years are measured from when Adam was born
NOT, from creation.
So it says Nothing about the "days" prior to the creation of Adam.
a)We have a tradition that those 6 days contained eras. This was long before big bang theory, rabbis would refer to the tradition and say eras.
b)The sun was not apparent until during day 4, so there is no question that "days" 1-3 didn't have the concept of a daytime, nighttime. Even Morning and Evening, cannot have meant in relation to the sun, yet they are mentioned every day. "and it was evening, and it was morning, day x"
If we start reinterpreting the Torah in order to meet the science of today, then we are basing ourselves on science, not torah. Then when science changes, Torah is cheapened. And it's not honest to reinterpret torah in light of science so as to pretend it is saying things that it clearly isn't.
I like this type of thought.
-
Wouldn't it be exciting if they discovered that the world IS 6000 years old? :dance: There are a lot of "young earth" websites that point to various problems with the scientific theory claiming that the earth in billions of years old.
it's impossible...however...i wasn't alive 6000 years ago to say otherwise...but the proof is more on the side of a billion years and not 6000 years...nevertheless, it doesn't mean Gd doesn't exist..He sure does
And why would that be? Is it more proof, or does it have to do more with the fact that, that has been repeated many times and in the acedemic world it has been taught that way as if it was a fact. You understand what I mean? I think that it has to do more with the fact that other's have repeated many times, then the actual "proof". And like you said you weren't around at that time, so saying the above sentence is already saying that one is more biased for billions of years instead of the literal translation of the Torah.
-
Wouldn't it be exciting if they discovered that the world IS 6000 years old? :dance: There are a lot of "young earth" websites that point to various problems with the scientific theory claiming that the earth in billions of years old.
it's impossible...however...i wasn't alive 6000 years ago to say otherwise...but the proof is more on the side of a billion years and not 6000 years...nevertheless, it doesn't mean Gd doesn't exist..He sure does
And why would that be? Is it more proof, or does it have to do more with the fact that, that has been repeated many times and in the acedemic world it has been taught that way as if it was a fact. You understand what I mean? I think that it has to do more with the fact that other's have repeated many times, then the actual "proof". And like you said you weren't around at that time, so saying the above sentence is already saying that one is more biased for billions of years instead of the literal translation of the Torah.
Fossils fossils fossils. Scientific experiments. Common sense...But that doesn't mean I don't think Gd exists. I believe exactly waht the Torah says..I just interpret it differently from you and your rabbis...
-
One thing we should not forget is that 1- Many of the people in acedemia have a biased agains't "religion".
2- Their was a great flood- "Mabul" and the commenteries say (before Darwin was born) that it is called the Mabul because it is similar to the hebrew word meaning making old because the Mabul made the world much older (In a way if you think about a person- let's say he got some terrible disease, eventually it went away, but it still impacted his body making him look much older and weakening his body).
3- The Creator is over nature. He created things and He controls everything. When he wanted nature to work a certain way then it does, when He wants nature to work a different way, then He does it that way (for example the 10 Plagues of Egypt- that doesn't normally happen in nature, but when G-d wanted their to be for example- fire and ice to rain down together, then He made it that way, and it is perfectly normal to believe, since G-d is incharge of Nature and everything and He does things the way He wants.
-
One thing we should not forget is that 1- Many of the people in acedemia have a biased agains't "religion".
2- Their was a great flood- "Mabul" and the commenteries say (before Darwin was born) that it is called the Mabul because it is similar to the hebrew word meaning making old because the Mabul made the world much older (In a way if you think about a person- let's say he got some terrible disease, eventually it went away, but it still impacted his body making him look much older and weakening his body).
3- The Creator is over nature. He created things and He controls everything. When he wanted nature to work a certain way then it does, when He wants nature to work a different way, then He does it that way (for example the 10 Plagues of Egypt- that doesn't normally happen in nature, but when G-d wanted their to be for example- fire and ice to rain down together, then He made it that way, and it is perfectly normal to believe, since G-d is incharge of Nature and everything and He does things the way He wants.
Tzvi, you can believe anything you want. It doesn't matter to me if it were proven 6000 years by religious people or a trillion years by scientists..Gd exists...nobody can prove that to me wrong.
For me personally, when it comes down to creation and evolution, in my mind, one doesn't cancel the other one out. one can create an arguement of one against the other...I simply don't care to argue one wrong or the other right...I konw what works in my mind...it will change as I live and learn other thoughts...but the bottom line is, GD exists He created the universe in His magical way.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
What evidence is there that these people of 10,000 year old civilizations, were human?
Sure, creatures that could build houses for themselves, and they could paint..
We have no Linguistic evidence to analyse. That would show us what they were feeling.. examine it for ethical/moral thinking. These could have just been creatures who internally were below man, even if they had the form of man.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
Cavemen might have not been the same species as us. We are Homo sapiens..cavemen might have been a Homo somethingortheother. That would mean that if a caveman were to be taken from the past 10,000 years ago and mated with a human of today, they would be unable to viable children with each other because they were different species much like if you were to cross a donkey with a turtle.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
Cavemen might have not been the same species as us. We are Homo sapiens..cavemen might have been a Homo somethingortheother. That would mean that if a caveman were to be taken from the past 10,000 years ago and mated with a human of today, they would be unable to viable children with each other because they were different species much like if you were to cross a donkey with a turtle.
the question of what is a human, is not merely answered by looking at what a human can mate with..
BTW, one can cross a zebra and a horse, get a zorse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krAhedzqiik
One way of answering what is a human, is to look for the genetic appearance of a human, (which is different to a caveman)
But more than that.
To look for the moral / ethical thinking that makes a human, and I suppose distinguishes him from the animals.
What makes a human a human is more than just physical form. Or, who he can mate with.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
What evidence is there that these people of 10,000 year old civilizations, were human?
Sure, creatures that could build houses for themselves, and they could paint..
We have no Linguistic evidence to analyse. That would show us what they were feeling.. examine it for ethical/moral thinking. These could have just been creatures who internally were below man, even if they had the form of man.
There is no question that hominids were genetically and morphologically different in the past. Its all really a matter of tom'ay'to tom'ah'to.
Many anthropologists say the first homo sapien sapien appreared around 100,000 years ago... .but again... the skulls from that period are DEFINITELY not the same as today's humans... so its really up for debate.
As homo sapien sapien (Not Neanderthal) skulls are found closer and closer to the present... they start to resemble us more and more. The ones from 10,000 years ago are nearly.. but not completely identical.
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
Whales, dolphins , birds
all of these animals have language ability that far exceeds anything a human can even come close to. "Words" by themselves are not a measure of ability., they are simply the way that humans communicate.
The extremely complex structure of whale song is, among other things, a very high level navigational and alarm system. Humans are unable to match 5his system without the use of technology.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
Cavemen might have not been the same species as us. We are Homo sapiens..cavemen might have been a Homo somethingortheother. That would mean that if a caveman were to be taken from the past 10,000 years ago and mated with a human of today, they would be unable to viable children with each other because they were different species much like if you were to cross a donkey with a turtle.
the question of what is a human, is not merely answered by looking at what a human can mate with..
BTW, one can cross a zebra and a horse, get a zorse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krAhedzqiik
One way of answering what is a human, is to look for the genetic appearance of a human, (which is different to a caveman)
But more than that.
To look for the moral / ethical thinking that makes a human, and I suppose distinguishes him from the animals.
What makes a human a human is more than just physical form. Or, who he can mate with.
But zorses cannot beget zorses..they become infertile..It is a general scientific thing that if two species mate, they might be able to create offspring, but the offspring cannot make the same thing. Therefore, if cavemen were a different species from humans today, they might create offspring, but non-viable just like mules are non-viable but are a cross of donkeys and horses (I think).
As far as moral and ethical thinking..that's a different subject..I wasn't referring to this point of view. I was referring to the ability of creating viable reproducing offspring by two different species.
What sets Homo sapiens, as a species apart from other species is that they have what's called a prefrontal lobe in their brain. This is the part of the brain, that once it is developed, is responsible for human beings abilities to make decisions between right and wrong. Jewish men wear tfillin on top of this area and it is known by many as the location of the human soul. Why is this? Because that is where our moral decisions lie. If we learn morality properly, it will be that part of the brain that will help us relay our decisions.
If Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens, and therefore the first real human beings, it was because they had this pre-frontal lobe unlike other human-like species. How do we know this? Because they felt guilt when they ate from the tree of knowledge. They realized they did wrong. They felt ashamed of themselves. That's the pre-frontal lobe at work. This is the human condition.
-
The bible is clear that Adam, first man, was less than 6000 years ago.
that disagrees with a claim that modern humans are 10,000 years old
What evidence is there that these bodies and civilizations were human?
There is plenty of evidence.... but even if there weren't.... does that mean that civilizations older than 6000 years old where built by aliens?
assuming fossils and cave paintings are not planted, and cave men existed.
cavemen are not humans, but not aliens either.
Cows and Bulls are not aliens.
not human does not mean alien.
What evidence is there that these people of 10,000 year old civilizations, were human?
Sure, creatures that could build houses for themselves, and they could paint..
We have no Linguistic evidence to analyse. That would show us what they were feeling.. examine it for ethical/moral thinking. These could have just been creatures who internally were below man, even if they had the form of man.
There is no question that hominids were genetically and morphologically different in the past. Its all really a matter of tom'ay'to tom'ah'to.
Many anthropologists say the first homo sapien sapien appreared around 100,000 years ago... .but again... the skulls from that period are DEFINITELY not the same as today's humans... so its really up for debate.
As homo sapien sapien (Not Neanderthal) skulls are found closer and closer to the present... they start to resemble us more and more. The ones from 10,000 years ago are nearly.. but not completely identical.
Listen, if you look at a skull of a mongoloid (chinese, japanese, korean etc) with teh skull of a negroid (blacks) with the skull of a caucesoid (the rest), the skulls might look different..but the brain will essentially look the same. And all of these races can mate and create other types of humans that can make more humans.
The same goes with dogs. You have long haired, short haired, collies, gold retrievers, german sheperds etc...all look different, but different phenotypes..all can create dogs. You can consider blacks, whites, yellows, etc as different breeds of humans.
But what distinguishes a human from other species is spelled out so many ways scientifically and religiously. Humans are capable of choosing right from wrong when taught properly what is right and what is wrong. Other species can't. That's why we are so special. This is why we celebrate 5700-6000 years of existence of the first humans who demonstrated guilt which indicates they realized what was right from wrong and how Gd made us so unique as a species. Is the world really that old? Probably not given scientific evidence that it can't be. However, I can bet my bottom dollar that it will later be proven that morality demonstrated by human beings is 5700-6000 years old..that's when the world began turning.
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
Speech is one thing sure...However how many times have humans misunderstood each other's speech? Believe me, speech is nothing. It's our ability to learn right from wrong...and I when i say right from wrong I mean whatever is taught to be right and wrong. in bad societies, what is evil is right and what is righteous is evil. throughout the ages in Judaism, we have attempted successfully to create the right as right and the wrong as evil and we continue to make it better.
-
before adam people were apes
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
Whales, dolphins , birds
all of these animals have language ability that far exceeds anything a human can even come close to. "Words" by themselves are not a measure of ability., they are simply the way that humans communicate.
The extremely complex structure of whale song is, among other things, a very high level navigational and alarm system. Humans are unable to match 5his system without the use of technology.
Daleksfrearme,
Are you saying that Dolphins & Birds have written poetry? Have they written anything? What is it they are saying? We do not believe that animals have free-will as you and I have free will. What do you think they are saying? There is nothing in the entire creation like the creative speech and writing of humanity. I think you are just saying that these species are able to make noises which mean certain things.
Could you please tell me a Dolphin story?
muman613
PS: Whale navagation is not speech... It is a system of sounds used to navigate. There is no comparison between human speech and whale sounds. Once again can you please provide an example of a Whale sentence or paragraph?
PPS: According to the sages the reason speech is so powerful is because this is the quality, along with free-will, which distinguishes humans from animals and makes us in Hashems image {creators}.
http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/free.html
Rabbi Berel Wein
The characteristic that distinguishes humans from animals is the power of speech, which, more than any other trait, represents our intellectual capacity to communicate. Judaism always has taught that this characteristic is a holy gift from the Creator. Just like the gifts of life, health, talents, and family, this gift of speech is not to be abused. It is to be used sparingly and carefully, for good purposes and not for evil. Gossip, muckraking, slander, and cynical language all fly in the face of the purpose of this holy gift of speech. Even when one is speaking the truth, one is cautioned to avoid the pitfalls of lashon hara, for unlike the case of a libel action, truth alone is not a sufficient cause for speaking about others. As such, the rabbinic encouragement of healthy silence is well understood and appreciated. In a world where, sadly, this precept is in vogue, and in fact, the entire concept of lashon hara may inspire only incredulity, a determined effort on our part to restore the sanctity of speech is certainly in order.
-
<snip>
But what distinguishes a human from other species is spelled out so many ways scientifically and religiously. Humans are capable of choosing right from wrong when taught properly what is right and what is wrong. Other species can't. That's why we are so special. This is why we celebrate 5700-6000 years of existence of the first humans who demonstrated guilt which indicates they realized what was right from wrong and how Gd made us so unique as a species. Is the world really that old? Probably not given scientific evidence that it can't be. However, I can bet my bottom dollar that it will later be proven that morality demonstrated by human beings is 5700-6000 years old..that's when the world began turning.
In the story of Adam and Eve, you say they did wrong and felt guilty.. I guess so perhaps, but more fundamentally what we see clearly from the story, is that they went against the master's wishes, and hid because they were afraid.
Wouldn't an animal do something against his master's wishes, and hide? or fear punishment.
What if G-d forbid, a child is in trouble, and a dog tries his best but fails to save it. And the owner comes home, maybe the dog would feel like he failed.
He was doing the act for the child and for his master, who is still there.
It's like guilt.
"guilt"/"regret" are just more intellectual forms of thinking things back in your mind.. and wishing you could change it.
I must say I haven't given much though to trying to prove differences between man and animal.. I have found so many humans that I consider to be like animals.
I knew somebody that said animals can't create..
Years later I saw a program that showed monkeys that had actually developed tools. They said people didn't think animals could do that, it was a big shock.
You mention religion as a distinction, that is one which I think maybe animals don't have. But even that, you know, maybe one animal somewhere is under the illusion that a rock has some special power. You could call that a primitive religion. The religion just won't spread like they do amongst humans, because animals don't have the intellect or language to communicate ideas like humans can. And of course their ideas are simpler.
animals can be selfish and selfless. This is a basis for moral decisions. They just don't have the intelligence to really mull it over.
humans can admire culture. secular ones in particular love culture. It's not a great thing though.. "we are distinct from animals because we can appreciate the beauty of a painting". Animals though can also lie about and appreciate life, once their survival needs are taken care of.
Sometimes humans are thick like animals, and all they understand is if you are angry with them or pleased with them, or telling them to move here or there, and any other more more detailed communication is lost on them.
Infact, in some of the posts on forums, you can see no thought development at all, they may as well not use words. The distance between man and animal becomes ever closer.
The example you gave of prefrontal lobes, was adam and even and the fruit. But i'm sure you could train an animal that something is against your wishes, and they do it and fear a reaction.
Like not to eat a fruit you left out. And maybe they will choose to starve to death rather than eat it!! Or maybe they will eat it.
They are making a decision there. And as the situation worsens the factors change, so they are considering it somewhat. It doesn't take much intellect to think of both possibilities, so they can do it.
If they had more intellect they could consider more complex choices, like a situation of arabs outnumbering jews in the future. Throwing out the arabs and looking bad, vs keeping them there .. A simpler version would be a car coming, should they try to save their kitten or not. They probably would, yet they certainly sense the danger. Infact, I suspiciously think they would act as immediately as a human!! Often humans put in these situations make a quick decision without hesitation. Just instinctively.
maybe animals can do simple maths too, 1+1, in a simple game for example. They have that form of intelligence, but not the intelligence to think of more abstract mathematics like differentiation. (of course, many humans have that problem.. and the line between man and animal shortens again!)
-
I think Human beings are the most advanced form of life for a reason. There is no doubt that we have the ability to create so many things. I have not seen any animal, even those monkeys, build themselves houses or schools or skyscrapers. Humans are so much more advanced than animals that I am surprised so many here are arguing about how intelligent animals are.
I love my cats and they are intelligent animals, but they can't program a computer. My cats cannot wash my clothes nor my dishes. I cant talk to my cats when I get home from work and get a reply other than a pur. Humans are the ultimate, despite what some people here seem to think about people being like animals.
It is this lesson, that humans have two souls, the animal soul and the divine soul and there is a struggle going on between these two factions. Since we are a part of the divine we have conscience and struggle with doing right in the face of wrongdoing. Our animal souls tell us to enjoy life and not be responsible. This is what our scripture is supposed to teach us. This is why they call it the Tree of Life and the Manual for living. Look at the stories of the first book... In every case there is a struggle between doing wrong and doing good. In Gan Eden there was only one command yet they couldn't keep it. Cain & Able demonstrates more about human nature. The stories of Noach and Tower of Babel exhibit other human failings. Each story shows the good and the bad of all the characters.
I believe as the Rabbis and Sages taught our forefathers. What we need to concentrate on is making ourselves better in light of Torah and not care what the birds and whales are saying. I think we can live in harmony with the animals and elevate them. I know that animals know there is a creator because I hear it when I meditate in prayer. I think that as smart as the animals are they have a mission alongside humanity. We are the prime mission in this world. This is my belief.
muman613
-
I have had a debate on this forum before about this exact topic, (with Tzvi ben Roshel I think). It is certainly an interesting question. I believe that based on scientific evidence, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. But I believe in the Torah also. I also believe that Adam was the first man but not necessarily the first human.
I believe that G-d created the world in six days, but what was a day? I doubt that G-d used human measurements such as a day. Therefore six days may refer to G-d's interpretation of the concept of a day.
We have human fossils from as far back as two million years ago, but I believe that at one point (possibly 6000 years ago) G-d gave man a soul, and what one would recognize as a real person began walking the Earth.
I do not believe that the creation account and the scientific narrative are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I am not profoundly troubled by the fact that I do not know the answers.
All I can say is that I am keenly aware that people are incapable of even conceiving the questions concerning the mysteries of the universe, let alone the answers.
-
I have had a debate on this forum before about this exact topic, (with Tzvi ben Roshel I think). It is certainly an interesting question. I believe that based on scientific evidence, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. But I believe in the Torah also. I also believe that Adam was the first man but not necessarily the first human.
I believe that G-d created the world in six days, but what was a day? I doubt that G-d used human measurements such as a day. Therefore six days may refer to G-d's interpretation of the concept of a day.
We have human fossils from as far back as two million years ago, but I believe that at one point (possibly 6000 years ago) G-d gave man a soul, and what one would recognize as a real person began walking the Earth.
I do not believe that the creation account and the scientific narrative are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I am not profoundly troubled by the fact that I do not know the answers.
All I can say is that I am keenly aware that people are incapable of even conceiving the questions concerning the mysteries of the universe, let alone the answers.
Shalom Zachor_ve_Kavod,
Very well put... This is also how I feel about this issue.
muman613
-
G-d created fully grown trees, not just seeds. G-d created Adam a fully grown man, not just a baby.
G-d similarly created a "grown" world. A world that scientifically appears much older much in the same way Adam appeared scientifically much older than one day old on his birthday.
That is one thing we must keep in mind.
We also must keep in mind the limitations of radioactive dating which makes many many assumptions and extrapolations about the way elements interacted thousands of years ago when no such data was being recorded.
The Torah does not leave its simple interpretation and under its simple interpretation the world is exactly 5,769 years old.
-
My view is that modern man came about around 6000 years ago.
That is, we became civilised 6000 years ago.
Before that, we may have been rather barbaric.
And then, half a million years ago we may have been more savage.
A million years ago or more, we may have been rather animal-like.
-
I keep hearing this phrase my mainly atheists or people who bash religion claiming that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, but no where have I been able to actually find a verse or anything that references to the world being 6000 years old. G-d is outside of time correct? So couldn't a day perhaps be a million years to G-d? How is the time measured? Isn't this time currently measured via the Roman calender? Let me know.
I dont know where the scripture is exactly, but it says that a day "Is as a thousand years to G-d"
-
In the tenach, there is
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
By the way , and this is really significant..
there is a kabbalistic teaching that the world(I guess universe not just earth) is 15 billion years old
That does correspond with science of today!
So it's a very significant thing.
note- I may have made an error in my maths here, but it seems ok to me. This is a well known thing, the 15.3 billion calculation by rabbi yitzchak of akko
Rabbi yitzchak of Akko based it on the kabbalistic teaching that the world is created and destroyed 6 times, lasting 7000 years each time.
So that's 42,000 years passed by before our world was created.
Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko points to
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
says that these 42,000 years the kabbalists speak of are to be taken as divine years.
A divine day is 1000 earth years (see tenach verse)
(it's 1000 times longer than an earth year)
A divine year is 365.25 divine days.
So,
equate them, earth years are of course the smaller unit.
divine day . = 1000 earth years
so we want to know how many earth years, are 42,000 divine years.
Because the world was created after 42,000 divine years.
divine year = 365.25*1000 earth years
= 365,250
42,000 divine years = 42,000 * 365,250
= ~15.3 billion years.
note - there is a dispute as to which cycle we are in, so some say final cycle, so 42,000 divine years passed, meaning indeed, 15.3 billion years.
others say second cycle (which I guess is 5.1 billion 14000*365250).
Here are 2 sources
http://www.jewishmag.com/8MAG/WORLDS/worlds1.htm (Classic webpage)
http://www.thehope.org/toreng0.htm (something I just picked up now)
To repeat myself..
rabbi yitzchak of akko has it htat,
1 divine day is(=) 1000 earth years.
our world was created after 42,000 divine years
divine day is the bigger unit,
we want to have the number of divine days to however many are in 42,000 divine years.
so times LHS by 365.25(days in a divine year)*42,000(to get days in 42,000 divine years)
Do the same on the RHS, which already has 1000 , so it's 1000*365.25*42,000
Another way to look at it is,
1 divine day = 1000 earth years
1 divine year = 365,250 earth years
42,000 divine years = 15.3 billion.
Another way is
365.25*42000=1.5 million
that's how many divine days before earth was created.
earth days are a smaller unit by 1000, so
1.5 million *1000= 15 billion.
sometimes it's worth thinking of it in a few ways to check yourself and not get tripped up in the mental arithmetic.
-
In the tenach, there is
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
By the way , and this is really significant..
there is a kabbalistic teaching that the world(I guess universe not just earth) is 15 billion years old
That does correspond with science of today!
So it's a very significant thing.
Rabbi yitzchak of Akko based it on the kabbalistic teaching that the world is created and destroyed 6 times, lasting 7000 years each time.
So that's 42,000 years passed by before our world was created.
Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko points to
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
says that these 42,000 years the kabbalists speak of are to be taken as divine years.
A divine day is 1000 earth years (see tenach verse)
(it's 1000 times longer than an earth year)
A divine year is 365.25 divine days.
So,
equate them, earth years are of course the smaller unit.
divine day . = 1000 earth years
so we want to know how many earth years, are 42,000 divine years.
Because the world was created after 42,000 divine years.
divine year = 365.25*1000 earth years
= 365,250
42,000 divine years = 42,000 * 365,250
= ~15.3 billion years.
Here are 2 sources
http://www.jewishmag.com/8MAG/WORLDS/worlds1.htm (Classic webpage)
http://www.thehope.org/toreng0.htm (something I just picked up now)
Yes q_q Sweetie! THATS THE ONE!! See, I am doing GOOD! Arent you proud of me, I ALMOST had it memorized. HUGS q_q :fist:
-
G-d created fully grown trees, not just seeds. G-d created Adam a fully grown man, not just a baby.
G-d similarly created a "grown" world. A world that scientifically appears much older much in the same way Adam appeared scientifically much older than one day old on his birthday.
That is one thing we must keep in mind.
We also must keep in mind the limitations of radioactive dating which makes many many assumptions and extrapolations about the way elements interacted thousands of years ago when no such data was being recorded.
The Torah does not leave its simple interpretation and under its simple interpretation the world is exactly 5,769 years old.
Lulab (i'm addressing you since you are more able to discuss things logically than others making this mature earth argument)
I know the L Rebbe taught that they were 24h days.
There is the issue of extrapolation against the fossil dating.. BUT , natan aviezer points out in Fossils and Faith.. That there are many scientific disciplines all using different techniques that come to an old earth. Of course, it may be that they all draw wrong conclusions due to assumptions of extrapolation.
(I have heard in a wacky amnon yitzchak video, a tape of somebody that was obviously a christian scientist, saying that there are some measurements that imply a young earth. I don't know about that though, how valid the research is. I doubt it is any good peer reviewed journal)
Regarding the mature earth argument, it's true MAYBE G-d made it to appear old. But the annoying thing about those that make that argument, is that all te examples they give are not analogous.
We are talking about an earth where fossils are planted to fool us into thinking the earth is old. What is the point other than to fool us?
Is there any such precedent?
People , as you have, give the man example.
Let's look at the man example. Adam was created mature? Why? To fool us into thinking he grew up normally? NO! The obvious reason is so that he could survive himself on his own. If G-d wanted to fool us with that one he could have mentioned a baby bottle! (or fossilized it or whatever)
Here is another example. to argue a precedent for G-d fooling us. I think the argument is flawed too
We have a tradition that G-d hides himself from us in this world. (and obviously in our times he does hide himself , moreso than in the past anyway)
Things appear "natural".
So, there, the argument is.. G-d created the laws of physics to fool us into thinking that the world runs naturally , without G-d.
This argument suffers the same problem. The obvious reason for creating the laws of physics or rather, for running the world following or in accordance with those laws, is so that we can live in it and anticipate things and build things and move where we want, and work in it.
If it didn't, we'd have problems, so you can't say it's just to fool us. Or, no other reason than to fool us. Or that there's no reason , so it must be to fool us based on that tradition.
Let's look at the fossils again.
remember, we are assuming 24h days of creation here.
Now consider fossils being planted. There is really no obvious reason for fossils to create the illusion of an old earth, other than to confuse us into thinking the days are long when they aren't. To perhaps make the biblical account appear false(to one that assumes 24h).
That does not compared with the man example or the physics example.
So if it is the case, there really is no precedent for it. Or rather, those examples don't work as good precedents.
another point(less thought through).. man really was mature(he had just skipped the ageing process), the earth really is run in accordance with the laws of physics. It's not like false evidence planted, as the mature earth(young earth!) people would say. The young earth people, the L rebbe and other charedim anyway, are saying the earth really is young, and fossils are just planted to fool us. This inherent lying/fooling doesn't exist in the other examples(if anybody is fooled into thinking that Adam did age to that age-20, and that because of the laws of physics, there is no G-d running things, then that's accidental not inherent in the evidence). So the analogies don't work in that sense either.
-
<ssnip>
Yes q_q Sweetie! THATS THE ONE!! See, I am doing GOOD! Arent you proud of me, I ALMOST had it memorized. HUGS q_q :fist:
I'm sure you're singing right now! Or were then anyway!
-
Personally I dont have a problem with the concept that Hashem created a mature world. This is not G-d trying to actively fool us, but is an aspect of his trying to hide himself in nature. Remember that the word we use for World, Olam really expresses the idea of hiddenness. After Adam & Eve were evicted from Gan Eden the L-rd erected barriers to return. Is it not possible that making the world physically appear as if it is older is one way Hashem makes himself more hidden from us. His hidden aspect is one of his attributes which contribute to the idea of free-will. If G-d were visible and provable through science would anyone ever transgresss his spiritual laws? I dont think that this is done as a way of 'fooling' humanity, more as a way of testing it.
In my way of looking at things there may be a combination of explanations why our science comes to different conclusions than our Torah. It is also true that the Kabbalistic accounts do discuss other worlds being created and destroyed and the concept that days are thousands of years in Hashems eyes.
muman613
-
My view is that modern man came about around 6000 years ago.
That is, we became civilised 6000 years ago.
Before that, we may have been rather barbaric.
And then, half a million years ago we may have been more savage.
A million years ago or more, we may have been rather animal-like.
That sounds reasonable. But there are plenty of 'men' out there that are still savages.
-
My view is that modern man came about around 6000 years ago.
That is, we became civilised 6000 years ago.
Before that, we may have been rather barbaric.
And then, half a million years ago we may have been more savage.
A million years ago or more, we may have been rather animal-like.
That sounds reasonable. But there are plenty of 'men' out there that are still savages.
what is incredible is that africans didn't even discover writing until europeans introduced it to them. In thousands of years they produced nothing, no material or recorded thought.
-
<ssnip>
Yes q_q Sweetie! THATS THE ONE!! See, I am doing GOOD! Arent you proud of me, I ALMOST had it memorized. HUGS q_q :fist:
I'm sure you're singing right now! Or were then anyway!
HUGS q_q :-* Your my FAV Kahanist that is left !
-
My view is that modern man came about around 6000 years ago.
That is, we became civilised 6000 years ago.
Before that, we may have been rather barbaric.
And then, half a million years ago we may have been more savage.
A million years ago or more, we may have been rather animal-like.
That sounds reasonable. But there are plenty of 'men' out there that are still savages.
what is incredible is that africans didn't even discover writing until europeans introduced it to them. In thousands of years they produced nothing, no material or recorded thought.
No Writing... No Wheel.. No architecture (Huts don't count)... No Monetary system.. some tribes untouched by outsiders don't even have words for colors or numbers above 3 in their languages.
-
<ssnip>
Yes q_q Sweetie! THATS THE ONE!! See, I am doing GOOD! Arent you proud of me, I ALMOST had it memorized. HUGS q_q :fist:
I'm sure you're singing right now! Or were then anyway!
HUGS q_q :-* Your my FAV Kahanist that is left !
Left!!!!!! What are you talking about. I'm right!!!
-
My view is that modern man came about around 6000 years ago.
That is, we became civilised 6000 years ago.
Before that, we may have been rather barbaric.
And then, half a million years ago we may have been more savage.
A million years ago or more, we may have been rather animal-like.
That sounds reasonable. But there are plenty of 'men' out there that are still savages.
what is incredible is that africans didn't even discover writing until europeans introduced it to them. In thousands of years they produced nothing, no material or recorded thought.
No Writing... No Wheel.. No architecture (Huts don't count)... No Monetary system.. some tribes untouched by outsiders don't even have words for colors or numbers above 3 in their languages.
that reminds me of a comedian talking about how they can't count past 3. Any number past 3 was just some word. Also reminds me of a comedy where prior to inventing the wheel, some people were huffing and puffing trying to cart something on 4 square blocks.
Their primitiveness is a slight issue ..
According to the Torah, Adam,spoke hebrew the divine language. and we presume that even then it had fundamantal words of 1..10. Since it's a divine language.. I wouldn't think much of it is man made. Adam presumably could count.
Yet these african tribespeople are SO primitive, it is like they are not from Adam. The thing is though, they have produced , once in a blue moon, an Alan Keyes, who is clearly human, many once educated in the west, one can see are clearly human. Many can be a bit immoral and thick, but are still human.
So it's suprising how humans, if descended from Adam, could be SO primitive.
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
True but some animals are really intelligent, dolphins that play games of tag or baboons that form pacts and even rape and kill or single out another baboon they don't like, many animals have learned to use tools, monkeys that are capable of typing and memorizing images and remembering them on a screen.
There is even an elephant that can paint a picture of it's self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
-
In the tenach, there is
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
cool math, qq
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
True but some animals are really intelligent, dolphins that play games of tag or baboons that form pacts and even rape and kill or single out another baboon they don't like, many animals have learned to use tools, monkeys that are capable of typing and memorizing images and remembering them on a screen.
There is even an elephant that can paint a picture of it's self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
There is a difference between immitating a behavior and learning it. I have seen monkeys on tv and in movies and they are indeed capable of immitating human behaviours but I dont think that they learn and are able to utilize the skill. Do you think monkeys and elephants are capable of building their own shelters? I dont think this is the case. Maybe they can use a bone as a hammer, but to apply it to building a structure is a whole new ball of wax. Monkeys and other animals don't have the creative spark. You know if you place 1Bil monkeys before 1Bil typewriters eventually they will write all of Shakespear... That doesnt mean that monkeys are capable of constructing sentences and paragraphs...
I think that you are looking at animals mimiking behaviours which they dont understand. I have seen circus animals and although they are interesting, I dont think they are capable of understanding what humans understand.
muman613
-
In the tenach, there is
“for a thousand years in Thy sight are but like yesterday when it past“ (Psalm 90:2)
cool math, qq
rabbi yitzchak of akko has to take the credit!
and if he is right then , well, something like that is probably from something like Ruach HaKodesh . Which is a communication direct from G-d.
it's startling.
To have got to the number of 15 billion , that matches science at the moment , it's not explained by probability. And when you look at how, say, the muslims jump through hoops trying to find things that turn out to have been either already known at the time, or 50/50, or just plain wrong, or wrong science of the time. It's just incredible. There are a few other things like that.
The rabbi a few hundred years ago that looked at a story in gemara and said it was a metaphor, that one day we would rule over another people and were moshiach not to come, we'd be thrown into the sea.
Or the Vilna Gaon that corrected a date in the zohar, that 3 towers would crash. No year was given, but the date - day and month, corresponded to 9/11 in 2001.
-
But more than that.
To look for the moral / ethical thinking that makes a human, and I suppose distinguishes him from the animals.
What makes a human a human is more than just physical form. Or, who he can mate with.
That is a very good point. And that is exactly what the Torah is telling us.
-
To the Torah Jews in discussion in this thread, I would remind you to consider what is the definition of "man" in the Jewish theology. That perhaps holds the key to this entire discussion, whether we can iron out the uncertainties and specifics or not.
-
The biggest problems with scientific theories is carbon- and other dating. Dating is highly suspect. They date thing A through thing B, but then they turn around and date thing B back through thing A. It's a circular thing. The bottom line is that if an artifact is more than several thousand years old, its dating may be wildlely inaccurate. This is why I am very skeptical about their "billions of years." Scientists constantly change their theories - sometimes in most fundamental ways. They are often arrogant people who make the human being their G-d.
-
It is believed that one of the major things which makes Humans more than animals is the power of speech. Our human ability to speak and understand is unique amongst all creations. I realize some may argue that other species have forms of communication but no animal comes close to human ability to express in words.
muman613
True but some animals are really intelligent, dolphins that play games of tag or baboons that form pacts and even rape and kill or single out another baboon they don't like, many animals have learned to use tools, monkeys that are capable of typing and memorizing images and remembering them on a screen.
There is even an elephant that can paint a picture of it's self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
There is a difference between immitating a behavior and learning it. I have seen monkeys on tv and in movies and they are indeed capable of immitating human behaviours but I dont think that they learn and are able to utilize the skill. Do you think monkeys and elephants are capable of building their own shelters? I dont think this is the case. Maybe they can use a bone as a hammer, but to apply it to building a structure is a whole new ball of wax. Monkeys and other animals don't have the creative spark. You know if you place 1Bil monkeys before 1Bil typewriters eventually they will write all of Shakespear... That doesnt mean that monkeys are capable of constructing sentences and paragraphs...
I think that you are looking at animals mimiking behaviours which they dont understand. I have seen circus animals and although they are interesting, I dont think they are capable of understanding what humans understand.
muman613
Monkeys and other animals do not need to build the same types of shelters that humans require for survival. Keep in mind that Humans are on the whole, very vulnerable to our environment. We compensate by building large structures to protect us. Humans are also guilty of overrunning an area and using it to the point where it is not longer viable for life....only virus and other one celled animals are also guilty of that in nature.
-
This topic has been debated several times before on this forum.
Here's a link to the audio of a lecture Dr. Gerald Schroeder gave in Jerusalem on this very subject.
I think you'll find it informative and fascinating. A must listen for anyone truly interested in the fundamental question of the age of the universe in relation to the teachings of the Torah.
Copy and paste this address into your browser:
mms://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3
Enjoy.
-
This topic has been debated several times before on this forum.
Here's a link to the audio of a lecture Dr. Gerald Schroeder gave in Jerusalem on this very subject.
I think you'll find it informative and fascinating. A must listen for anyone truly interested in the fundamental question of the age of the universe in relation to the teachings of the Torah.
Copy and paste this address into your browser:
mms://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3
Enjoy.
I wouldn't have high hopes for this guy in audio. I saw a video of him once. He rambled nervously and said some silly things . But his book is really good.
He may have some new books now. But when I looked into him, he put out 3 books . One was not what I was looking for, the contents were just arguing look how great creation is, it must have had a designer.
2 of them were brilliant. One was Genesis and the big bang. There was another one.
Some details in his physics are problematic apparently. But his general idea is good.. The idea of including some physics or any science in a populist book, is not taken seriously by scientists . I had a friend that refused to read it 'cos it's not peer reviewed. So they could write any nonsense, they are targetting the ignorant masses. Later I found that another orthodox physicist, Natan Aviezer, criticised the method.. in his book Fossils and faith though without mentioning Shroeder's name.
Gerald Shroeder is largely based on Oral Traditions. So not relevant to christians. But there is alot in there, it can blow you away. Really great stuff.
He is actually a Rabbi. (orthodox). I thin khe became one after discovering what he did .
Natan Aviezer just looks at the plain text. He has 2 books. Fossils and Faith, and "In The Beginning". I have read the former, it was quite good. I haven't read the latter. The latter is meant to be very good.
-
I wouldn't have high hopes for this guy in audio. I saw a video of him once. He rambled nervously and said some silly things . But his book is really good.
He may have some new books now.
I haven't seen any video of Dr. Schroeder, but he comes across very well in the audio lecture. I was very impressed by his presentation.
It's free to listen to, so what have you got to lose ?
He does have a new book coming out which he briefly talked about during a recent interview on the Tamar Yonah show.
One of the things that impressed me about the lecture in Jerusalem was Schroeder's references to the teachings of our sages (particularly those of the Ramban) on this contentious issue.
Even if one chooses to disagree with Schroder's assertions and conclusions, there's some fascinating information delivered in his lecture.
-
I wouldn't have high hopes for this guy in audio. I saw a video of him once. He rambled nervously and said some silly things . But his book is really good.
He may have some new books now.
I haven't seen any video of Dr. Schroeder, but he comes across very well in the audio lecture. I was very impressed by his presentation.
It's free to listen to, so what have you got to lose ?
He does have a new book coming out which he briefly talked about during a recent interview on the Tamar Yonah show.
One of the things that impressed me about the lecture in Jerusalem was Schroeder's references to the teachings of our sages (particularly those of the Ramban) on this contentious issue.
Even if one chooses to disagree with Schroder's assertions and conclusions, there's some fascinating information delivered in his lecture.
yes, i've read his books. He does come up with some very interesting traditions.
By the way, regarding some things in his big bang book, here is a very terse technical criticism..by the logic master!
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
Shroeder's book is a -great- book . As is the other one of his that I read. It came up with some particularly interesting quotes from the RAMBAN..
Here it is
I recall 3 books.. one I didn't like
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Gerald%20L.%20Schroeder
this is the one i didn't like
The Hidden Face of G-d: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth by Gerald L. Schroeder (Paperback - April 30, 2002)
(JUST INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT. NOT WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR)
may be of interest if it is what you are looking for.
It's the one with hte Sky picture and the biological picture.
THIS BOOK BELOW.. IS GREAT . the one with the picture of the hand on it!
The Science of G-d: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald L. Schroeder (Paperback - Oct 20, 1998)
That one, Science of G-d by shroeder, and Genesis and the Big Bang.
GREAT books by him. I read both and recommend both.
But they are reliant on oral traditions so not of interest to christians.
I also suggest Prof Natan Aviezer's stuff. He believes in an old earth. And he just bases himself on the plain text. And science. He is an orthodox jew too. And does seem to be less radical in his science. He is not radical at all in his science. Very conservative. Apparently he worked with Hawkings (I heard that in an interview he had with Tamar Yonah!). It's a shame her itnerviews aren't archived. His would be of interest to christians, it's more plain text.
-
I wouldn't have high hopes for this guy in audio. I saw a video of him once. He rambled nervously and said some silly things . But his book is really good.
He may have some new books now.
I haven't seen any video of Dr. Schroeder, but he comes across very well in the audio lecture. I was very impressed by his presentation.
It's free to listen to, so what have you got to lose ?
He does have a new book coming out which he briefly talked about during a recent interview on the Tamar Yonah show.
One of the things that impressed me about the lecture in Jerusalem was Schroeder's references to the teachings of our sages (particularly those of the Ramban) on this contentious issue.
Even if one chooses to disagree with Schroder's assertions and conclusions, there's some fascinating information delivered in his lecture.
Hello Muck,
I believe that SimpleToRemember.com also has Gerald Schroeders video available for download... Let me find it...
http://audio.simpletoremember.com/other/dr_schroeder_s.wmv
-
Thank you, muman613.
I believe I've stumbled across that link before, but since I'm on dial-up never downloaded the video.
Thanks for reminding me about it.
-
The biggest problems with scientific theories is carbon- and other dating. Dating is highly suspect. They date thing A through thing B, but then they turn around and date thing B back through thing A. It's a circular thing. The bottom line is that if an artifact is more than several thousand years old, its dating may be wildlely inaccurate. This is why I am very skeptical about their "billions of years." Scientists constantly change their theories - sometimes in most fundamental ways. They are often arrogant people who make the human being their G-d.
In the past few years dating techquines have been refined to the point when this is no longer true
Although some of the details have become much more clear over the years...the broad strokes have remained unchanged for quite some time.
-
You must choose between God or evolution, and not both, to give order to all manner of existence. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are wired to seek protectors i.e. God.
-
You must choose between G-d or evolution, and not both, to give order to all manner of existence. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are wired to seek protectors i.e. G-d.
I choose evolution so far..but evolution comes from Gd's hand...so yes, both. Not this or that.
-
You must choose between G-d or evolution, and not both, to give order to all manner of existence. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are wired to seek protectors i.e. G-d.
I believe G-d created through the means of directing natural processes including biological evolution. G-d created nature itself too and set its laws in motion.
This is something we have to take as a matter of faith because there's no conclusive measurable evidence that points inevitably to G-d's existence. However, G-d's existence can be inferred from nature, which is a different thing entirely than objectively demonstrating G-d's existence. Inferring is ok, and I do that too.
I choose evolution so far..but evolution comes from Gd's hand...so yes, both. Not this or that.
As a dentist you've learned enough Biology and other science to be familiar with the evidence. I'm glad I'm not alone in being a theistic evolutionist here on the forum.
-
You must choose between G-d or evolution, and not both, to give order to all manner of existence. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are wired to seek protectors i.e. G-d.
I believe G-d created through the means of directing natural processes including biological evolution. G-d created nature itself too and set its laws in motion.
This is something we have to take as a matter of faith because there's no conclusive measurable evidence that points inevitably to G-d's existence. However, G-d's existence can be inferred from nature, which is a different thing entirely than objectively demonstrating G-d's existence. Inferring is ok, and I do that too.
I choose evolution so far..but evolution comes from Gd's hand...so yes, both. Not this or that.
As a dentist you've learned enough Biology and other science to be familiar with the evidence. I'm glad I'm not alone in being a theistic evolutionist here on the forum.
Nothing random can create something as beautiful and harmonious as what we are and have today. All of the justice that takes place and every bit of poetry and music that sounds right. Yes I believe that evolution to get to this point wasn't random and is beautiful..for that reason GD DOES exist.
I dont' understand people who only believe in creationism and can't understand this point of view. They seem so insecure about about their theology that they want to shut out scientific thinking. This is a dangerous proposal..for that reason I despise creationistic thought and forceful movements to remove the science of evolution from schools. Creationism as written in the bible is a type of poetry. In my opinion, it shouldn't be taken so literally. We are sophisticated people who need to understand that the Bible is filled with lots of poetry and metaphor and that is how we should read most of it.
However, science should not be taken in offense if it questions what is written in the Bible. Science isn't perfect either because humans put it together..so someway somehow more science can prove what is written in the Bible is true eg. the 10 Plagues and the splitting of the Reed Sea and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
However with evolution, I have no doubt that we came to become in that manner...that Gd didn't simply do "zap' here a monkey 'zap here a worm 'zap' here a toad...evolution is nothing more than the finger of Gd creating us.
(Of course this point of view is subject to change since I'm not perfect)
-
Dr. Dan I don't understand why people prefer the Zap here and Zap there approach, when it's much more elegant and intricate for God to have guided the formation of various branches on a vast tree of life. As Darwin said there is grandeur in this view.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
-
Dr. Dan I don't understand why people prefer the Zap here and Zap there approach, when it's much more elegant and intricate for G-d to have guided the formation of various branches on a vast tree of life. As Darwin said there is grandeur in this view.<snip>
because Gen I does look like zaps.
and G-d said Let there be light, and there was light.
And G-d said Let the waters team with ..
day 1, second day, third day, ...
plants, fish and flying creatures, animals, man,
zap, zap, zap,
Apparently one problem with evolution, is gaps within the fossil evidence. They haven't found the micro-evolved forms that they would expect to. It has been a while since I looked into the arguments regarding evolution, scientists differ regarding how it takes place. I don't know much about it.
-
QQ there are two reasons for gaps.
One is that there may have been periods of rapid evolution which didn't have enough time to leave significant geological traces for all the intermediate forms. Another is that the fossil record IS incomplete. Not every form of life that ever lived was preserved. Some fossils have been destroyed over time, and not everything has been recovered, nor will we ever find every fossil of interest that happens to be in the ground.
Nevertheless, there have been transitional forms found between almost every major group. They have been found between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, etc. The whale series is full of transitional creatures as are other lineages.
Even today we have reptile-like monotreme mammals that lay eggs and have a milk patch instead of nipples, and a single hole for excretion and reproductive purposes (a cloaca, like reptiles). These are the platypus and echidna. They lie somewhere on the continuum between reptiles and mammals, but they are classified as mammals due to their hair, warm-bloodedness, and milk production.
I believe when the Bible says God said things like "Let there be light" that it could refer to things that took longer than a single moment.
If we believe that God created the universe, then we must be able to look at that universe and draw meaningful conclusions from it, otherwise all of science is void. We know the scientific method works, and is not void, because of all the advances it has brought us.
-
I don't have the book anymore and it has been a while. But I think natan aviezer pointed out.. , the theory of evolution isn't in the same category as other demonstrable scientific principles that have been harnessed and used to advance medicine/technology. Not all areas of science are equally strong. We have benefited from the strong areas, where things are understood well enough to be used to our advantage.
I must say, the jewish sources I read/heard have understandably been more about resolving contradictions than teaching details of evolution.
Rabbi gottlieb pointed out that creationism merges Torah and Science. He doesn't know what that is but it's not Torah(charedi view at least!) , and it's not Science.
It's something that rabbis haven't really taken an interest in doing. I have a scientist friend that would only either read the scientific papers, or read nothing.. He wouldn't read populist books.
-
There have been scientific innovations due to understanding evolution, particularly in the medical field in dealing with drug-resistant strains of pathogens.
Evolution is the basic theory of biology and just about anything done in biology is understood and studied within that framework, particularly medicine.
-
There have been scientific innovations due to understanding evolution, particularly in the medical field in dealing with drug-resistant strains of pathogens.
Evolution is the basic theory of biology and just about anything done in biology is understood and studied within that framework, particularly medicine.
Rubystars++
-
You must choose between G-d or evolution, and not both, to give order to all manner of existence. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are wired to seek protectors i.e. G-d.
I disagree... you can choose both. That is what intelligent design is about.
-
Dr. Dan I don't understand why people prefer the Zap here and Zap there approach, when it's much more elegant and intricate for G-d to have guided the formation of various branches on a vast tree of life. As Darwin said there is grandeur in this view.<snip>
because Gen I does look like zaps.
and G-d said Let there be light, and there was light.
And G-d said Let the waters team with ..
day 1, second day, third day, ...
plants, fish and flying creatures, animals, man,
zap, zap, zap,
Apparently one problem with evolution, is gaps within the fossil evidence. They haven't found the micro-evolved forms that they would expect to. It has been a while since I looked into the arguments regarding evolution, scientists differ regarding how it takes place. I don't know much about it.
The prevailing wisdom today within science is "punctuated equilibrium" as opposed to strict Darwinian microevolution (step by step). Darwin himself said about that that if the gradual gradations of species can't be found in the fossil record, he's wrong. So he is wrong to a certain extent. And the answer is this concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' ..... Sort of a mysterious factor no one can quite explain. Perhaps the Invisible Hand afterall.....
-
<snip>
The prevailing wisdom today within science is "punctuated equilibrium" as opposed to strict Darwinian microevolution (step by step). Darwin himself said about that that if the gradual gradations of species can't be found in the fossil record, he's wrong. So he is wrong to a certain extent. And the answer is this concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' ..... Sort of a mysterious factor no one can quite explain. Perhaps the Invisible Hand afterall.....
I have heard that.. and maybe Rubystars has an answer.. how the lack of evidence doesn't break it in her opinion.
note- I have heard that dawkins is more darwinian, whereas Gould is more for what you mention.
What you suggest at the end though is really bad.. It suggests that G-d is a G-d of the gaps. So as soon as one can't explain something , he puts G-d in there and says it has to be G-d. Then an explanation is found, and something else is unknown, so he uses a smaller gap to "prove G-d". This would have happened throughout time as silly people have made the same illogical point.
Funnily enough, I am not sure that scientists can really answer Why Things Move. They talk about this force at this end, and this force at the other end, an imbalance. But so what. Why should the object move. Maybe it's because if A is exerting a force on B, they can't occupy the same space due to intermollecular bonds being so strong. Yet one is trying to move into the other's space. There is also some kind of energy clash, an imbalance, and one has to move. That is of course a more philosophical answer..
So one doesn't even need to look at more complex things to find gaps in knowledge anyway.
-
It's not a G-d of the gaps, that's not what I was implying. But the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" has an essential Descartes-esque mystique inherent in it. There is a seeming 'guidance' toward a specific end, as opposed to the completely random chance Darwinian model in which life just gradually progressed step by step. Here there is a need for "catastrophic events" and "unknown driving forces" to account for leaps and bounds in the data. Whereas with a darwinian model, all you need is a beginning and it just step by step progresses along the way to where we are today. Much more fatalistic and "natural" or random. I believe punctuated equilibrium suggests otherwise. And it is not simply that "we just don't know yet" how to explain the jumps, but it is a significant mystery that they exist at all!
-
The prevailing wisdom today within science is "punctuated equilibrium" as opposed to strict Darwinian microevolution (step by step). Darwin himself said about that that if the gradual gradations of species can't be found in the fossil record, he's wrong. So he is wrong to a certain extent. And the answer is this concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' ..... Sort of a mysterious factor no one can quite explain. Perhaps the Invisible Hand afterall.....
Modern evolutionary theory has made big strides since Darwin. Punctuated Equilibrium are just periods of a more rapid rate of evolution. It still goes through a sort of gradual process, it's only rapid in the sense of geological time.
I have heard that.. and maybe Rubystars has an answer.. how the lack of evidence doesn't break it in her opinion.
note- I have heard that dawkins is more darwinian, whereas Gould is more for what you mention.
Dawkins and Gould both produced some good ideas. I would like Dawkin's ideas a little more if he didn't have such an obnoxious personality and try to be such a militant theist-hater.
What you suggest at the end though is really bad.. It suggests that G-d is a G-d of the gaps. So as soon as one can't explain something , he puts G-d in there and says it has to be G-d. Then an explanation is found, and something else is unknown, so he uses a smaller gap to "prove G-d". This would have happened throughout time as silly people have made the same illogical point.
I agree with this point you were making. You can't stick God into gaps in knowledge. I simply believe God plays a guiding role through natural processes. For example to bring a flood God could guide the clouds to form in a certain way, and cause the wind to blow in a certain direction, etc. but the same processes that are normally present within the water cycle would be there.
Funnily enough, I am not sure that scientists can really answer Why Things Move. They talk about this force at this end, and this force at the other end, an imbalance. But so what. Why should the object move. Maybe it's because if A is exerting a force on B, they can't occupy the same space due to intermollecular bonds being so strong. Yet one is trying to move into the other's space. There is also some kind of energy clash, an imbalance, and one has to move. That is of course a more philosophical answer..
So one doesn't even need to look at more complex things to find gaps in knowledge anyway.
Hawking and others were trying to tie Newtonian physics together with Einstein's relativity to form a "theory of everything" but the work is far from complete. There will always be unanswered questions in science, and as long as humankind is around I hope there will be always be science to find more of the answers to those questions, and of course to produce new questions!
-
<snip>
Hawking and others were trying to tie Newtonian physics together with Einstein's relativity to form a "theory of everything" but the work is far from complete. There will always be unanswered questions in science, and as long as humankind is around I hope there will be always be science to find more of the answers to those questions, and of course to produce new questions!
even the so-called "theory of everything".
if I got it correctly from the program I saw!
was only about finding a theory that is true for the large and the small.
Currently we have Quantum physics for the small things, and for the larger things, Einstein and Newton's laws. Scientists want to know how things work in that why the differences occur. They want one theory to explain both, they don't have that yet.
It's not that scientists are looking for -a- solution to answer all things, with the currently elusive so-called "theory of everything"
Newton provided a theory that explained an apple from a tree, and planets in the sky. einstein too. So that was a really big deal. They just need to extend that to explain the very small. Then they'll call it the "theory of everything".
there was a good "Horizon" program on it. It's a quality program on british television sometimes. It covers different topics.
-
You're right about what it is QQ, but if we can understand particles and how they relate to the "macro" world we're more familiar with, then solving "how things move" will be easier.
The theory of everything would be to physics like evolution is to Biology. It would tie things together into a single framework, allowing a lot more advances to happen more quickly.
-
I think you are referring to the "Universal Theory".
Here is a link which describes this theory:
http://www.universaltheory.org/
-
Dr. Dan I don't understand why people prefer the Zap here and Zap there approach, when it's much more elegant and intricate for G-d to have guided the formation of various branches on a vast tree of life. As Darwin said there is grandeur in this view.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
If anything, these "random" forms of evolution coming to the point where we are today makes Gd's creations even more beautiful than the zap here and zap there 6 days of creation story. If anything this randomness of evolution to create our current world only proves even more so Gd's existence than the simple 6 literal day story that fossils were planted by Gd..I'm sorry, that's a cop out of an arguement that can't be explained by creationists and anti-evolutionists.
-
If anything, these "random" forms of evolution coming to the point where we are today makes Gd's creations even more beautiful than the zap here and zap there 6 days of creation story. If anything this randomness of evolution to create our current world only proves even more so Gd's existence than the simple 6 literal day story that fossils were planted by Gd..I'm sorry, that's a cop out of an arguement that can't be explained by creationists and anti-evolutionists.
I understand what you mean. The one time I tried to go to church, I left after a few weeks because they said that fossils were planted in the ground. That wasn't the only mind-numbing thing I had heard there, but it was one of the things that really frustrated me. The final straw was when they started saying that people in several other denominations were likely going to hell.
I really wish that more people would accept science. It would be a better world.
-
I think the basic disagreement here boils down to whether one takes the account of creation as depicted in Genesis entirely literally, or if one believes it is written with elements of parable.
I think the latter is probably true, but either way it is an amazing passage.
My belief is that when G-d created the universe he created all that there is, including the laws of nature that govern it. I don't think the theory of evolution is in any way incompatible with Torah.
We can disagree about whether there was a 'zap' here or a 'zap' there, but one thing is certain--the Zapper can do anything He chooses.
-
This is all based on science which changes from week to week, from month to month... This is why it is difficult to believe what science is saying. In my lifetime I have seen the timeline change and theories have come and gone. I remember the ideas about Dinosaurs whether they are related to birds or reptiles... Each scientist can come up with his/her own theory and it doesn't even have to fit into the big picture.
The bottom line is that life is not a random occurrence. There is no way that such complexity can arise from absolute chaos without a creator. Arguing the length of time since the beginning of creation proves nothing. As we said earlier the length of a day can be argued about during the 1st 3 days of creation. Also it is possible that G-d created an OLD WORLD. Why is this any mystery considering according to the story of Beresheit Adam was created a full-grown man. Why couldnt Hashem create a full-grown world which appears older than it really is?
muman613
I like to tell the athiests the story about the computer in the field....
If a computer is laying in a field, was it an accident or was it created????
It gets them thinking....
Of course, they all think I am an idiot when they are the ones looking idiotic because they don't believe in G-d, the creator of the universe, and that everything was an accident...
-
Also, just a year or two ago...a really famous Athiest from the UK who was also a scientist, finally decided that there must be G-d because it was lining up with his studies....he had been pretty hard core, also......
That was rather refreshing, that science is lining up with the bible.....and that this man changed his outlook on all of it....
I was like YAY G-D!!!!!!
-
<snip>
I was like YAY G-D!!!!!!
that is very poor english, and common amongst silly teenage girls (some of whome are now no longer teenagers)
see this thread I started,
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,28857.0.html
-
If anything, these "random" forms of evolution coming to the point where we are today makes Gd's creations even more beautiful than the zap here and zap there 6 days of creation story. If anything this randomness of evolution to create our current world only proves even more so Gd's existence than the simple 6 literal day story that fossils were planted by Gd..I'm sorry, that's a cop out of an arguement that can't be explained by creationists and anti-evolutionists.
I understand what you mean. The one time I tried to go to church, I left after a few weeks because they said that fossils were planted in the ground. That wasn't the only mind-numbing thing I had heard there, but it was one of the things that really frustrated me. The final straw was when they started saying that people in several other denominations were likely going to hell.
I really wish that more people would accept science. It would be a better world.
Exactly, I know what you mean Ruby, it feels like they are questioning my intelligence and expect me to be an idiot because they don't know the answer so they tell me to accept it just because. That's not the word of God, that's the people that rn the church mixing the word of God and their own personal morals and beliefs.
I will not and cannot accept that fossils were just put here as a "test" or "planted", that's rediculous. The bible must say something about it which is why I brought up the question of the age of the earth and how our time differs from the Roman calender.
I can't recall who said it, but I like the idea that someone had stated there is no evidence that cavemen were human and that "civilization" as we know it started 6000 years ago, that would make a heck of a lot more sense. The idea of the Earth it's self only being 6000 years old though doesn't add up, not saying that it's impossible, just that I think people nitpick and stereotype the bible when I hadn't seen the verse myself that actually stated the age.
-
If anything, these "random" forms of evolution coming to the point where we are today makes Gd's creations even more beautiful than the zap here and zap there 6 days of creation story. If anything this randomness of evolution to create our current world only proves even more so Gd's existence than the simple 6 literal day story that fossils were planted by Gd..I'm sorry, that's a cop out of an arguement that can't be explained by creationists and anti-evolutionists.
I understand what you mean. The one time I tried to go to church, I left after a few weeks because they said that fossils were planted in the ground. That wasn't the only mind-numbing thing I had heard there, but it was one of the things that really frustrated me. The final straw was when they started saying that people in several other denominations were likely going to hell.
I really wish that more people would accept science. It would be a better world.
Exactly, I know what you mean Ruby, it feels like they are questioning my intelligence and expect me to be an idiot because they don't know the answer so they tell me to accept it just because. That's not the word of G-d, that's the people that rn the church mixing the word of G-d and their own personal morals and beliefs.
I will not and cannot accept that fossils were just put here as a "test" or "planted", that's rediculous. The bible must say something about it which is why I brought up the question of the age of the earth and how our time differs from the Roman calender.
I can't recall who said it, but I like the idea that someone had stated there is no evidence that cavemen were human and that "civilization" as we know it started 6000 years ago, that would make a heck of a lot more sense. The idea of the Earth it's self only being 6000 years old though doesn't add up, not saying that it's impossible, just that I think people nitpick and stereotype the bible when I hadn't seen the verse myself that actually stated the age.
You are being a bit arrogant assuming people are nitpicking and steriotyping when after these 7 pages of thread you still haven't understood where the numbers come from. So you don't understand either side of the argument.
The ~6000 figure is not in one verse, it is derived by adding the ages of people from Adam. Thus it is from Adam.
Those that say the earth is that old, are assuming that 6(or 7 or some of those) days were 24 hours (a fair assumption). But there are other good reasons to say eras.
Now, regarding people only telling you that the fossils are planted. Well, you obviously haven't looked very far to ask your questions to rabbis. (i know you live far away from vibrant jewish life)
The big outreach organisations outreach organisations, Aish, Ohr Sameach, both teach the eras possibility.
The only "outreach organisation" that teaches 24h, is chabad, because it's a chassidic group whose Rebbe said they were 24 hours.
If you actually read the popular books on the subject. Shroeder, or Natan Aviezer, you see ample explanation about them being ERAS. Neither of them even entertain the idea that the evidence was planted.
-
Yes, it seems silly to think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I'm not an expert, but I don't believe the Torah directly states the age of the Earth. The figure 6000 is derived by adding the number of years of each generation after Adam.
A common misconception is that Rosh Hashanah celebrates the birthday of the Earth. A more profound understanding is that Rosh Hashanah denotes the anniversary of the creation of the soul of man.
So in reality the 6,000 year figure doesn't mean the Earth is 6,000 years old, but rather the creation of mankind - humans with souls - occurred 6,000 years ago.
Jewish sages teach that there were only 3 creations. The first creation was the creation of the universe. This was the only physical creation. The second creation was the soul of animals. The third and final creation was the soul of man.
Our sages also teach us that the 6 days of the physical creation of the universe is not on the same earthly time scale or calendar that we humans use to measure time now. In other words, there is a separate clock - a divine clock - being employed when describing and measuring those 6 days. This divine clock measures time looking forward from the beginning. Our human measurement of time which only begins after Adam's soul is created is entirely different than the divine clock.
So in essence, we are dealing with 2 clocks or methods of measuring time. The divine clock, which looks forward from the beginning, encompasses the first 6 days of creation and can be extrapolated to being equal to approximately 15 billion years from our earthly perspective in the space-time continuum.
It is interesting to note that a 'day' on the divine clock is indeed 24 hours. But each of those 24 hour divine days encompass billions of years as measured from our earthly perspective. And each of the divine days is a different length of time as measured in earth years.
Without going into too much detail, it can be computed that divine 'day one' lasted about 8 billion of our earth years. The second 24 hour divine day lasted about 4 billion earth years. The 3rd divine day lasted 2 billion earth years. The fourth, 1 billion. The fifth, 1/2 billion and the sixth, 1/4 billion. Adding these numbers up we find that the 6 divine days of creation equal about 15 billion earth years.
I hope this clears up and helps resolve the apparent differences regarding the age of the universe between the Torah and modern science. The two are not incompatible.
-
The Earth is old about 6000 years.And it's not silly,it's not funny nor anything like that.You should not watch or read evolutionist's,satanist's lies and imaginations.
One of the best proves is the Earth's magnetic field.First you should know that there are 2 kinds of magnets.The first kind is natural magnet,the second one is electromagnet(made by someone).Natural magnet lose its field when the temperature rise above 750 Celsius degrees.
(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8365/magnetnj1.gif)
For many years scientists thought that the Earth is one giant natural magnet,but temperature in the Earth rises(on every 3 meters the temperature rises by 1 Celsius degree) above 750 Celsius degrees on the depth of just 25km(15,6 miles).So,it means that the Earth is an electromagnet,which implicates that in the middle of the Earth we have circulating electrical streams(intensity of 6 billions Amperes).That shocked evolutionists,because there are no evolutionist model which can explain creation of such a thing in a middle of the Earth.What or who started those electrical streams?They can't answer who put it inside by any of their evolutionst models.
Scientists concluded that those electrical streams are going to decay,because theya re not connected to any source.Friedrich Gauss started to measure it in 1835,and today we can see that every century the intensity of the field is decaying by 5%.There are mathematical formulas for those calculations and using them we can conclude this:
1.if the Earth is only 10 000 years old,the intensity of the field was 98 gauss(unit named by F.Gauss),which means that the Earth was a "magnetic star".And that's impossible!
2.if the Earth is old about 52 000 years,than we get the calculation of magnetic field intensity showing the Earth was "pulsing star"(pulsar),which is also impossible!
That means the Earth CAN'T BE OLDER MORE THAN 10 000 years(more precisely 8700yrs)!
And that's regarding the age of our God's created planet...
*****************************************************
Considering lies and illusions about symbolism of days...
There are many scientific proves telling us that God's words written by Moshe in his books are literal and there are no symbolism in it.The words are simple,written on the way that could be understood by uneducated(unlettered) Jewish shepherds.So,there is no reason that we shouldn't understand it,today.
Creation of Earth did happen in 6 days(day=24 hours) and one of the biggest proves for that is dr.Robert Gentry's research on granite.His research shows us that granite was made immediately,in 2 or 3 seconds.It declines millions and billions of years.
Evidence for Earth's Instant Cretaion-Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal
http://www.halos.com/
(http://www.halos.com/images/halo.jpg)
Videos on this subject:
1.Young Age of the Earth,http://www.halos.com/videos/0003-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthSpanish-217k.htm (http://www.halos.com/videos/0003-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthSpanish-217k.htm)
2.Fingerprints of Creation,http://www.halos.com/videos/0002-FingerprintsofCreationSpanish-215k.htm
An Overview
Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
**********************************************
-
The way things work in science is scientists look at it and it gets into a peer reviewed journal.
I know a scientist that flatly refuses to read "popular" science books. For that reason..
I did have a book called Fossils and Faith by Natan Aviezer, he points out that there are many scientific techniques from different scientific disciplines, that all point to an old earth. It's unlikely that the dating is wrong
(unless perhaps there's some common thing amongst all of them that invalidates them.. like if the flood affected the atmosphere and affected all of them)
So even if your thing is valid.. why choose it over other techniques that point to an old earth?
Evolution aside, fossils are an issue for one that talks of a young earth.
Fossils don't prove evolution. But they date to being very old, so do point to an old earth.
-
for me the world is as old as me :)
-
for me the world is as old as me :)
very wise...but it's the way young children think..therefore, it's a primitive way to think that the world is only in being because you exist...but then again, each one of our existence is important for the world's...
-
for me the world is as old as me :)
very wise...but it's the way young children think..therefore, it's a primitive way to think that the world is only in being because you exist...but then again, each one of our existence is important for the world's...
He was obviously joking, Dr.
-
I still think anyone with a hard science background who thinks the earth is 6000 years old is silly. If you believe it for strictly religious reasons I can respect that belief, but it will never line up with the evidence.
-
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Universe, is 14 billion years old, and every atom & sub-atomic particle in your body has existed since the begining of the Universe, the material you are made of is 14 billion years old, some of it forged in the cores of massive stars at millions of degrees heat, then blown out in supernovas long before our sun even formed. Mind boggling when you think about it.
:o
-
Roughly 6000 years ago is when what we would recognize as civilizations began. The beginning of Genesis, ie the first 5 or 6 days is probably allegorical for the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history before the beginning of civilization. The dates in Genesis I think are largely symbolic. I do believe that Abraham was roughly 4000 years ago.
That there are disputes about what is and isn't allegorical, and what dates are and are not accurate does not particularly disturb me. It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
-
<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.
The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.
-
It is interesting to note that a 'day' on the divine clock is indeed 24 hours. But each of those 24 hour divine days encompass billions of years as measured from our earthly perspective. And each of the divine days is a different length of time as measured in earth years.
Without going into too much detail, it can be computed that divine 'day one' lasted about 8 billion of our earth years. The second 24 hour divine day lasted about 4 billion earth years. The 3rd divine day lasted 2 billion earth years. The fourth, 1 billion. The fifth, 1/2 billion and the sixth, 1/4 billion. Adding these numbers up we find that the 6 divine days of creation equal about 15 billion earth years.
I hope this clears up and helps resolve the apparent differences regarding the age of the universe between the Torah and modern science. The two are not incompatible.
The length or period of each divine day may be proportional to the average outer velocity of the expanding universe during that particular day.
-
<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.
The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_. If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic. In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years. Then came Noah. So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years. That is longer than all of recorded history. This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical.
Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age. Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older? My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.
-
<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.
The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_. If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic. In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years. Then came Noah. So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years. That is longer than all of recorded history. This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical.
Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age. Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older? My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.
Zachor,
You realize that some of those people you mentioned were alive at the same time. You cannot simply add up their lifespans and say that it is longer than history. Artscroll in their Chumash lists the generations and who lived when and how long. There are good explanations why the people lived as long as they did. I don't doubt that people could live as long as Hashem wants them to live.
Here is one explanation: http://www.vbm-torah.org/Parasha.64/01bereishit.htm
However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Chanokh's lifespan is much shorter – less than half as long, in fact – than the lives of the generations that preceded and that followed him, especially his father and his son. In Tanakh we generally find that the number of years of a person's life is directly linked to his behavior. The reward for fulfillment of mitzvot is long life ("I shall fill the number of your days" – Shemot 23:26, and elsewhere), while a shorter lifespan is evidence of Divine punishment ("Nor shall there ever be an elderly man of your household" – Shemuel I 2:32, and elsewhere). What, then, is the meaning of this apparent contradiction in the description of Chanokh's character?
More about this @ http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5761/bereshit61/aliya.htm
Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 24 p'sukim - 5:1-24
The lineage from Adam through Sheit (Seth) to No'ach (into the next Aliya) is set down, with the age of the father at the birth of the son, and each person's age at his death. These numbers help us construct the first part of our timeline. Although many sons and daughters are born to this list of patriarchs of the world, only one representative of each generation is named. Some say that only the named individual had the longevity that is recorded; the "average man and woman in the street lived much shorter lives. Others say that the lifespan of the human was much longer before the Flood.
Shishi concludes with mention of Chanoch, who was taken from this world (possibly not by death) at the relatively young age of 365.
-
<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.
The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_. If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic. In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years. Then came Noah. So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years. That is longer than all of recorded history. This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical.
Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age. Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older? My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.
Zachor,
You realize that some of those people you mentioned were alive at the same time. You cannot simply add up their lifespans and say that it is longer than history. Artscroll in their Chumash lists the generations and who lived when and how long. There are good explanations why the people lived as long as they did. I don't doubt that people could live as long as Hashem wants them to live.
Here is one explanation: http://www.vbm-torah.org/Parasha.64/01bereishit.htm
However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Chanokh's lifespan is much shorter – less than half as long, in fact – than the lives of the generations that preceded and that followed him, especially his father and his son. In Tanakh we generally find that the number of years of a person's life is directly linked to his behavior. The reward for fulfillment of mitzvot is long life ("I shall fill the number of your days" – Shemot 23:26, and elsewhere), while a shorter lifespan is evidence of Divine punishment ("Nor shall there ever be an elderly man of your household" – Shemuel I 2:32, and elsewhere). What, then, is the meaning of this apparent contradiction in the description of Chanokh's character?
I understand your point. But why would Abraham live a comparitively short life then? And why would it say that he lived a long life?
-
<snip>
I understand your point. But why would Abraham live a comparitively short life then? And why would it say that he lived a long life?
From what I understand the nature of the air changed after the flood and it negatively affected the lifespan of humanity. I dont remember exactly why this occured.
http://www.shemayisrael.com/Parasha/alport/archives/noach68.htm
Eileh Toldos Shem Shem ben me’as shana vayoled es Arpachshad sh’nasayim achar hamabul Vayechi Shem acharei holeedo es Arpachshad chameish meos shana vayoled banim u’vanos (11:10-11)
In Parshas Bereishis, the Torah lists the ten generations from Adam to Noach to Avrohom and the years of their lives (5:3-32). A quick examination reveals that the average post-flood lifespan of the generations from Noach to Avrohom listed in our parsha (11:10-26) was significantly shorter than that of the post-flood generations. To what may this change be attributed?
Our great commentators suggest a number of explanations for this phenomenon. The Rambam writes (Moreh Nevuchim 2:47) that even before the blood, the average lifespan was only 70 or 80 years, and those who are mentioned as living much longer were exceptions to the rule. The Ramban disagrees and maintains that these individuals weren’t exceptional, but rather all people prior to the flood had longer lifespans. After the flood, natural conditions were no longer as supportive to humans, which resulting in declining lifespans. Finally, the Seforno suggests (8:21) that prior to the flood, there were no changes in the weather and in seasons, which allowed humans to remain much stronger. After the flood, unnatural changes in the earth and sun resulted in constantly changing weather conditions that left humans less healthy and shortened their lifespans.
-
Roughly 6000 years ago is when what we would recognize as civilizations began. The beginning of Genesis, ie the first 5 or 6 days is probably allegorical for the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history before the beginning of civilization. The dates in Genesis I think are largely symbolic. I do believe that Abraham was roughly 4000 years ago.
That there are disputes about what is and isn't allegorical, and what dates are and are not accurate does not particularly disturb me. It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
This is a good question and I can tell you what the anthropologists say. They say that music and dancing became a human characteristic 50,000 years ago. Also that man began living in tiny communities around 10,000 years ago. Sumer, which the anthropologists generally regard as the first civilization was roughly 6000 years ago.
This is not my opinion. I'm only telling you what I've read from anthropology textbooks.
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
When humanity became anatomically modern and began to communicate with one another in more complex ways that could be considered a true language.
Of course if you go back far enough there is a sticky situation. You don't know exactly what generation that 'humanity' started. There were several species of hominids alive at the same time. Some of them were probably at least as intelligent as the Kung San in Africa or Aboriginals in Australia, which are considered to be modern humans. When the Aboriginals of Tasmania were discovered by white people, they didn't even have fire, yet they are considered to be modern humans. Homo erectus had fires, but they're not considered to be human. For a period of history it's hard to determine where 'humanity' begins.
Here is an image of "Tasmanian Aboriginals"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Truganini_and_last_4_tasmanian_aborigines.jpg/616px-Truganini_and_last_4_tasmanian_aborigines.jpg)
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
This is a good question and I can tell you what the anthropologists say. They say that music and dancing became a human characteristic 50,000 years ago. Also that man began living in tiny communities around 10,000 years ago. Sumer, which the anthropologists generally regard as the first civilization was roughly 6000 years ago.
This is not my opinion. I'm only telling you what I've read from anthropology textbooks.
Playable bone flute found in China, 9000 years old:
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/bnlpr092299.html
"In 1996, excavation of a Neanderthal cave site in northwestern Slovenia uncovered, what appears to be, the section of a transverse flute made from the femur bone of a young bear. This bone fragment was perforated with four round holes whose shape and alignment strongly suggested that it was, indeed, the remnant of a Neanderthal wind instrument. The artifact is dated between 43,000 to 82,000 years old, making it the flute ever to be associated with Neanderthals and oldest musical instrument ever found."
Note that Neanderthals were not exactly the same species as what we consider "modern humans". They were more like our close cousins. Nobody knows for sure if regular humans and Neanderthals could interbreed though. Our type of human lived at the same time their type of human did.
http://www.shakuhachi.com/CM-Fink-NEANDERTHAL.html
-
First people,first civilization,before the Flood happened described in Bible were much bigger,stronger,with more potential in every aspect of life,because nature was different-climate conditions were different,atmosphere pressure was different with different concentrations of gases in the air.
I see that some of you are saying that fossils shows that the Earth is "old".That's not true.Methods used for that are not reliable at all.I can give an interesting example on this subject,too.
There are evidence,scientific proves(archeology,then physics&chemistry) for that,bit I don't have time to explain and show now.
Later...
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
When humanity became anatomically modern and began to communicate with one another in more complex ways that could be considered a true language.
Of course if you go back far enough there is a sticky situation. You don't know exactly what generation that 'humanity' started. There were several species of hominids alive at the same time. Some of them were probably at least as intelligent as the Kung San in Africa or Aboriginals in Australia, which are considered to be modern humans. When the Aboriginals of Tasmania were discovered by white people, they didn't even have fire, yet they are considered to be modern humans. Homo erectus had fires, but they're not considered to be human. For a period of history it's hard to determine where 'humanity' begins.
Here is an image of "Tasmanian Aboriginals"
<snip image>
The jewish ~6000 figure puts Adam at 3760BCE
I guess the 6000 figure is held by christians too, because you have the bible, which puts Abraham after around 2000 years. And Abraham , judging by the laws of the place he lived, a historian would put him around 1800BCE. So you get around 3800BCE.. nearly 4000BCE As oppose to something like 14,000BCE
I heard one guy.. I don't think he was trying to make the case that outside evidence shows that humanity started ~6000 years ago..
But he just wanted to show that civilization 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it's human.. He basically said that linguistic evidence would be something we can look at to determine it.. seeing what they think and feel.. what they value. We don't have it > 6000 years ago.
I found something about the oldest writing being 3200BCE.
homo sapians - human in body - meant to be around as far as back as 200,000 years ago.. would have been the ones that did cave paintings which are as old as 30,000 years..
He argued that a cave painting shows the thing that drew it is good at drawing, but they don't show much more. Sometimes a picture of an animal.. so maybe the person that drew it was hungry and decided to draw the animal. We don't know.
They would have had a voice box, but that doesn't prove they are human. Maybe their language was simple.. we don't know the content of what they were saying..
I suppose what he says works to say to bible skeptics "hah, you haven't disproven me.. you have to provide linguistic evidence, because that is one thing that, an analysis of might show they were human".
The lack of linguistic evidence, I suppose, would strengthen the biblical position alot if people expected it but couldn't find it. But , it's interesting that apparently blacks didn't have any writing until around 1800CE or so, when christian missionaries introduced it to them.
Some of them are decent human beings, so I'd say they are part of the human "race" - from Adam.
You suggest earlier that Adam represents Humanity. I heard a much more literal statement on that.. That the thing that distinguished Adam from other creatures, or even things before him if there were. Was that Adam had a human soul. G-d breathed it into him. Anything before him is not considered man. So from a biblical perspective, it's a human body and a human soul - both literally - that maketh the man.
By the way.. one of the funniest things I saw.. was in a museum(I think it was the Natural History Museum in London), there was this life size model of what early woman looked like. It think it was earlier than homo sapian. It basically looked like a black woman. Naked. (perhaps particularly ugly, but the body was very human looking). So people come into the hall of the museum and they stare at it wondering/thinking the obvious privately to themselves, and they could justify staring scientifically! I stood around because I liked the psychology of it.. Eventually a mother came in with some kids.. the little boy is staring, wondering.. and his mother pulled him away! then you got black women coming in, having a look, and getting a bit embarrassed and irritated and walking off. Or more aware ones embarrassed at how other people are staring and wondering. Somebody should take a small video camera into that museum in that spot! I did wonder if any were white.. I just read that homo sapians entered europe 150,000 years ago and skin got lighter.
-
<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over. At least that is my opinion.
For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.
The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_. If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic. In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years. Then came Noah. So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years. That is longer than all of recorded history. This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical.
Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age. Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older? My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.
well, it can be assumed to be what you say...but an assumption is an assumption... Case and point...Gd exists, the Torah is real...allegorical or literal.
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
Humanity began when Man knew Gd. Adam was the first man to know Him.
-
<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.
what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?
When humanity became anatomically modern and began to communicate with one another in more complex ways that could be considered a true language.
Of course if you go back far enough there is a sticky situation. You don't know exactly what generation that 'humanity' started. There were several species of hominids alive at the same time. Some of them were probably at least as intelligent as the Kung San in Africa or Aboriginals in Australia, which are considered to be modern humans. When the Aboriginals of Tasmania were discovered by white people, they didn't even have fire, yet they are considered to be modern humans. Homo erectus had fires, but they're not considered to be human. For a period of history it's hard to determine where 'humanity' begins.
Here is an image of "Tasmanian Aboriginals"
<snip image>
The jewish ~6000 figure puts Adam at 3760BCE
I guess the 6000 figure is held by christians too, because you have the bible, which puts Abraham after around 2000 years. And Abraham , judging by the laws of the place he lived, a historian would put him around 1800BCE. So you get around 3800BCE.. nearly 4000BCE As oppose to something like 14,000BCE
I heard one guy.. I don't think he was trying to make the case that outside evidence shows that humanity started ~6000 years ago..
But he just wanted to show that civilization 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it's human.. He basically said that linguistic evidence would be something we can look at to determine it.. seeing what they think and feel.. what they value. We don't have it > 6000 years ago.
I found something about the oldest writing being 3200BCE.
homo sapians - human in body - meant to be around as far as back as 200,000 years ago.. would have been the ones that did cave paintings which are as old as 30,000 years..
He argued that a cave painting shows the thing that drew it is good at drawing, but they don't show much more. Sometimes a picture of an animal.. so maybe the person that drew it was hungry and decided to draw the animal. We don't know.
They would have had a voice box, but that doesn't prove they are human. Maybe their language was simple.. we don't know the content of what they were saying..
I suppose what he says works to say to bible skeptics "hah, you haven't disproven me.. you have to provide linguistic evidence, because that is one thing that, an analysis of might show they were human".
The lack of linguistic evidence, I suppose, would strengthen the biblical position alot if people expected it but couldn't find it. But , it's interesting that apparently blacks didn't have any writing until around 1800CE or so, when christian missionaries introduced it to them.
Some of them are decent human beings, so I'd say they are part of the human "race" - from Adam.
You suggest earlier that Adam represents Humanity. I heard a much more literal statement on that.. That the thing that distinguished Adam from other creatures, or even things before him if there were. Was that Adam had a human soul. G-d breathed it into him. Anything before him is not considered man. So from a biblical perspective, it's a human body and a human soul - both literally - that maketh the man.
By the way.. one of the funniest things I saw.. was in a museum(I think it was the Natural History Museum in London), there was this life size model of what early woman looked like. It think it was earlier than homo sapian. It basically looked like a black woman. Naked. (perhaps particularly ugly, but the body was very human looking). So people come into the hall of the museum and they stare at it wondering/thinking the obvious privately to themselves, and they could justify staring scientifically! I stood around because I liked the psychology of it.. Eventually a mother came in with some kids.. the little boy is staring, wondering.. and his mother pulled him away! then you got black women coming in, having a look, and getting a bit embarrassed and irritated and walking off. Or more aware ones embarrassed at how other people are staring and wondering. Somebody should take a small video camera into that museum in that spot! I did wonder if any were white.. I just read that homo sapians entered europe 150,000 years ago and skin got lighter.
I happen to believe that q_q_, that Adam was the first man that G-d breathed a soul into. Therefore you might say that Adam was the first man in the sense that a man without a soul is less a man than an animal. Incidentally, I believe that there are some people still who have no souls and are consequently more like animals.
-
<snip>
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_. If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic. In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years. Then came Noah. So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years. That is longer than all of recorded history. This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical. <snip>
well, it can be assumed to be what you say...but an assumption is an assumption... Case and point...Gd exists, the Torah is real...allegorical or literal.
no, even muman showed that what zachor wrote in that post was completely wrong.
-
Here is a site which attempts to give a timeline:
http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/adm2abr.cfm
Years Years Before
From Creation The Common Era
Day 6 3761 CREATION OF ADAM (Sixth "day of creation")(1)
130 3630 Birth of Shait (Seth)(1)
622 3138 Birth of Chanoch (Enoch)(1)
687 3073 Birth of Metushelach (Methuselah)(1)
930 2830 "P'tirah" (Death) of Adam (1)
1056 2704 BIRTH OF NOACH (NOAH)(1)
1558 2202 Birth of Shem (1)
1656 2104 THE FLOOD (1)
1723 2037 Birth of Ever (Eber)(1)
1757 2003 Birth of Peleg (1)
1948 1812 BIRTH OF AVRAHAM (ABRAHAM) (1)
http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/timpersp.cfm
-
But he just wanted to show that civilization 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it's human.. He basically said that linguistic evidence would be something we can look at to determine it.. seeing what they think and feel.. what they value. We don't have it > 6000 years ago.
I'm pretty sure that anatomically human creatures would also be spiritually human creatures. I think that there will be a lot more evidence around that will be discovered that breaks this imaginary 6000 year boundary. I've read about a lot of artifacts that are older than 6000 years and show clearly human (as opposed to purely instictive animal) behavior. This includes musical instruments, ritual burials, carved maps, relatively sophisticated tools, etc.
I found something about the oldest writing being 3200BCE.
Pictograms are a form of writing and I think that cave paintings are one of the earliest forms of writing. They're meant to convey a message that can be read. They also may have had spiritual meaning.
homo sapians - human in body - meant to be around as far as back as 200,000 years ago.. would have been the ones that did cave paintings which are as old as 30,000 years..
Yes the paintings in France were done by early Europeans. The details in the images show intelligence and artistry. I'm proud of those paintings. I consider them part of the European heritage in which I share a part.
He argued that a cave painting shows the thing that drew it is good at drawing, but they don't show much more. Sometimes a picture of an animal.. so maybe the person that drew it was hungry and decided to draw the animal. We don't know.
They're just too good of paintings to be random drawings. The artists were skilled.
They would have had a voice box, but that doesn't prove they are human. Maybe their language was simple.. we don't know the content of what they were saying..
We do know that they had enough planning skill to live through the harsh environment of the European winters, which would have included communicating in hunting and storing enough food to survive through those bare months, and cooperation for such things as keeping fires going and working skins and furs with scrapers and other specialized tools.
I suppose what he says works to say to bible skeptics "hah, you haven't disproven me.. you have to provide linguistic evidence, because that is one thing that, an analysis of might show they were human".
I think expecting linguistic evidence from a long-dead language is a bit silly. However I do think there's sufficient evidence that they did communicate with one another in meaningful ways and produced some of the earliest technologies and works of art with their intelligent minds.
The lack of linguistic evidence, I suppose, would strengthen the biblical position alot if people expected it but couldn't find it. But , it's interesting that apparently blacks didn't have any writing until around 1800CE or so, when christian missionaries introduced it to them.
Some of them are decent human beings, so I'd say they are part of the human "race" - from Adam.
Oh I think they're part of the human race in the sense of being able to communicate with God, but they are different in significant ways from Asians and whites. I think they're a little further removed from those two than Asians and whites are from one another.
You suggest earlier that Adam represents Humanity. I heard a much more literal statement on that.. That the thing that distinguished Adam from other creatures, or even things before him if there were. Was that Adam had a human soul. G-d breathed it into him. Anything before him is not considered man. So from a biblical perspective, it's a human body and a human soul - both literally - that maketh the man.
I'd agree with that for the most part, but I think we have to look earlier for that moment than most scholars are currently looking. I think human history goes back far earlier than the cities and irrigation agriculture. I think smaller communities were around a long time before that and were fully human.
I did wonder if any were white.. I just read that homo sapians entered europe 150,000 years ago and skin got lighter.
I tend to agree with a mixture between the Out of Africa theory and the multiregional theory. I think that originally all humans were from Africa but there were several waves of migration out of Africa with various closely related hominids. One wave that came out and went to Asia for example was Homo erectus, and then later another wave of humans came out and went to Asia and might have cross-bred with some of the earlier hominids. Europeans might have cross bred somewhat with closely related Neanderthals, and God-knows-what the Africans crossed with since all the hominids came from there anyway.
Another idea is that there wasn't any crossbreeding and the different races just developed differently on their respective continents. This could also be true.
It is true that the first people likely had dark skin and then the skin lightened as people moved north into Europe and Asia to absorb more Vitamin D.
-
What I find unbelievable about this theory is that it would seem that there would be much much more evidence of many varieties of intelligent life than there exists today. Why are we the only upright intelligent speaking beings? If this evolutionary theory is true then there should be much more variety in the fossil records and even in living beings today. Why are all humans made with 10 fingers and 10 toes and everything else is a fluke of nature? Why two arms and two legs? It would seem to me that there should be other speaking and upright beings. I would imagine that having more legs and more arms would make a being more fit to survive. I have thought about how great it would be to have an extra set of arms, so that while working on the keyboard I can also drink and eat.
This is my own personal reason for having reservations against the theory of evolution. There should be much more variety in life considering all the potential mutations which could have occured.
-
What I find unbelievable about this theory is that it would seem that there would be much much more evidence of many varieties of intelligent life than there exists today. Why are we the only upright intelligent speaking beings? If this evolutionary theory is true then there should be much more variety in the fossil records and even in living beings today. Why are all humans made with 10 fingers and 10 toes and everything else is a fluke of nature?
The five fingers on each hand and foot goes back to amphibian ancestors.
Why two arms and two legs? It would seem to me that there should be other speaking and upright beings.
Same answer as above, the four limbs were seen in creatures like Acanthostega, which was an early quadruped.
As for a speaking upright being, there are parrots that use a variety of sounds to communicate. African gray parrots can actually understand some of what they learn to say in human speech.
Besides birds and humans, kangaroos are also upright and stand on two legs.
In the past there were a lot of different types of hominids living at the same time, that walked upright. It's hard to determine exactly which of them would have talked to God in the way that modern humans can without meeting them.
I would imagine that having more legs and more arms would make a being more fit to survive. I have thought about how great it would be to have an extra set of arms, so that while working on the keyboard I can also drink and eat.
More limbs also require more energy, so the least amount of limbs that would allow the most function is ideal.
Evolution also works with what's come before it. So basically any descendants of quadrupeds are either going to be quadrupeds or have fewer legs (like snakes) rather than more legs, unless they have some kind of polymelia abnormality. Arthropods seem to have found a different solution, using their legs for precise movement and speed.
This is my own personal reason for having reservations against the theory of evolution. There should be much more variety in life considering all the potential mutations which could have occured.
If you knew more about biology you'd realize that life on earth is extremely various. Also there were a lot of body plans that came about during the Cambrian explosion but most of them don't survive today.