Is the world 6000 years old?

[Barnes]

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.

[Dr. Dan]

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.

[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 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.

[Dr. Dan]

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)

[Rubystars]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Rubystars]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Rubystars]

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.

[q_q_]

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++

[briann]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.....

[q_q_]

<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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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! 

[Rubystars]

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!

[q_q_]

<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.

[Rubystars]

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.

[muman613]

I think you are referring to the "Universal Theory".

Here is a link which describes this theory:
http://www.universaltheory.org/

[Dr. Dan]

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.

[Rubystars]

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.

[Muck DeFuslims]

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.

[~Hanna~]

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...

[~Hanna~]

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!!!!!!

[q_q_]

<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

[White Israelite]

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.