JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lubab on August 09, 2007, 11:46:16 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution
Scientists are already admitting that evolution is not what they've tried to convince us it is, and that humans seemed to have been around first and at the same time as the apes. Heck we've been saying this all along!
Fossils challenge old evoluton theory
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Wed Aug 8, 5:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
ADVERTISEMENT
The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.
And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.
There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.
Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."
Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.
Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.
That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.
Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.
The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.
-
If the idiots in the early church had asked for Rabbinical help and translated Torah properly there would NEVER have been any confusion about creation versus evolution.
-
Why couldn't they just try and prove the true concepts in the Torah first to see if they are right and eliminate years of invented ideas on evolution and wasted spaces in museums full of Darwins theory.
Do you believe in Natural selection with animals?
-
Why couldn't they just try and prove the true concepts in the Torah first to see if they are right and eliminate years of invented ideas on evolution and wasted spaces in museums full of Darwins theory.
Because we need to start from the top and work our way down. The scientists need to work their way up from the bottom, until we meet in the middle. Then the truth can have it's full expression.
-
The study does not discredit evolution, it just clarifies the evolutionary tree. This happens all the time.
-
The study does not discredit evolution, it just clarifies the evolutionary tree. This happens all the time.
Yeah it's basically just a clarification here and there and it's still the same thing, only it looks NOTHING like the tree they drew for us and stuck in all our schoolbooks for generations.
And I bet the old designs are probably still in the kid's textbooks to this day! Can we spell "propoganda".
According to this finding homosapiens were around as long as the fossils of ape-like characters they've found if not longer, so what exactly is the point of the "evolutionary tree" at this point?
To say that you can now have humans at the beginning and end of this tree and still call it merely a "refinement" of the evolutionary tree is sort of Orwellian, don't you think?
The article says that they now have a big problem with the concept that one species evolve from the other, so what exactly is left of the theory of evolution as it relates to humans and apes?
-
Well the study just showed that 2 species were around the same time so one could not have evolved from the other, so they must have evolved from a common ancestor. My limited knowledge about this is that evolutionary trees are not exact since ancient fossils are frequently scarce so the evolutionary tree is frequently corrected when new solid evidence is found.
-
If this is really the case, I'm glad to see it as if it seems that the Adam and Eve story maybe literally true based on this new evidence.
However, Gd is Gd...as Chaim said, it makes really no difference...
-
Evolution can be true. G-d might have caused it. Lubab What do you think about the dinosaurs? Do you think that the world is literally 5767 years old?
-
Evolution can be true. G-d might have caused it. Lubab What do you think about the dinosaurs? Do you think that the world is literally 5767 years old?
Yes I do think the world is 5767 years old.
The dinosaurs may have existed and been destroyed by the flood. Or G-d may have created the world with those fossils already in the ground.
See: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=1276
-
Lubab, I think the dinosaurs were in existence before the mabul. Why would g-d create a world with dinosaur fossils in the ground?
-
Lubab, I think the dinosaurs were in existence before the mabul. Why would g-d create a world with dinosaur fossils in the ground?
Why not?
That same question could be asked about why G-d created anything the way that He did. Why did he make trees? Of course they help us breathe, but he could've made us breathe some other way. You know what I mean.
Aside from that, one answer given to your question about why G-d might do that is to intentionally raise this whole controversy about the date of the world and give a chance for the atheists to err, and then G-d can see who really seeks the truth and believes in Him in spite of that (or maybe because of it). Like a test of our belief.
-
I, personally, believe evolution to be a total sham for the "enlightened" to discredit HaShem. If one looks into the dictionary "evolution" or "evolve" means to change. If I said that a worm, under the proper environmental conditions, can change into a man in a flash....you'd laugh me under the table. Now the starting DNA of a worm does not change if one knows genetics and the end variable; a man's genetics are also stable therefore the only variable condition is time. So if a worm cannot change/"evolove" into a man in a matter of seconds, hours, days, years ect. why then is it all the sudden believable if one says a million years? The facts do not add up.
They have found many bones from crocodiles that date back to the age of the dinosaurs but they have not changed whatsoever when compared with the skeletons of today's crocodiles. Therefore they have not "evolved" at all but a monkey "evolved" into a man? It is a load of rubbish that wouldn't have gotten off of the ground if Marx, and the other enlightened academics, didn't take to its dialectical theories to disprove G-d.
Every example of "evolutionary" man is a fraud: Lucy, Piltdown man, Navada man, Neanderthal Man etc. all frauds...
imo... HaShem created different species and for whatever reason he got rid of them and started anew... there is no evidence that man existed when the dinosaurs were walking the Earth therfore they must have appeared after but not "evolved".... slime doesn't "evolve" into an elephant.... sorry.. my ranting...
-
Lubab, I understand what you are saying. My question is why would fossils which are part of an animal be put in the ground if the animal itself never existed. See what I am saying? Trees are an entity in themselves and not a small part of something else.
-
lubab, I love you, but you're in complete denial if you honestly believe the Earth and the Universe is 5767 years old.
The soul of Man is 5767 years old.
The Universe is BILLIONS of years old.
It's my understanding that's in agreement with Torah.
There were only 3 creations.
The creation of the physical Universe and the laws of nature.
Then later, the souls of animals.
And finally, the soul of Man.
It's the creation of the soul of Man, 5767 years ago, that we celebrate on Rosh Hashanah.
The insistence that the Earth is only 5767 years old is very disturbing.
-
lubab, I love you, but you're in complete denial if you honestly believe the Earth and the Universe is 5767 years old.
The soul of Man is 5767 years old.
The Universe is BILLIONS of years old.
It's my understanding that's in agreement with Torah.
There were only 3 creations.
The creation of the physical Universe and the laws of nature.
Then later, the souls of animals.
And finally, the soul of Man.
It's the creation of the soul of Man, 5767 years ago, that we celebrate on Rosh Hashanah.
The insistence that the Earth is only 5767 years old is very disturbing.
Did you read the article I linked to above?
-
Reprinted here: Open your mind to the possiblity that radioactive dating is as accurate as you've been led to believe and read the following letters with an open mind. I'm not in denail here. If you've got an intelligent (and repectful please) response to the contents of the below argument I'm happy to hear it.
Science and Torah -- At Odds
By the Grace of G-d
18th of Teveth, 5722
Brooklyn, NY
Greeting and Blessing:
After not having heard from you for a long time, I was pleased to receive regards from you through the young men of Chabad who visited your community recently in connection with the public lecture. I was gratified to hear that you participated in the discussion, but it was quite a surprise to me to learn that you are still troubled by the problem of the age of the world as suggested by various scientific theories which cannot be reconciled with the Torah view that the world is 5722 years old. I underlined the word theories, for it is necessary to bear in mind, first of all, that science formulates and deals with theories and hypotheses while the Torah deals with absolute truths. These are two different disciplines, where reconciliation is entirely out of place.
It was especially surprising to me that, according to the report, the said problem is bothering you to the extent that it has trespassed upon your daily life as a Jew, interfering with the actual fulfillment of the daily Mitzvoth. I sincerely hope that the impression conveyed to me is an erroneous one. For, as you know, the basic Jewish principle of na'aseh (first and v'nishma (afterwards) makes it mandatory upon the Jew to fulfill G-d's commandments regardless of the degree of understanding, and obedience to the Divine Law can never be conditioned upon human approval. In other words, lack of understanding, and even the existence of legitimate" doubts, can never justify disobedience to the Divine Commandments; how much less, when the doubts are illegitimate, in the sense that they have no real or logical basis, such as the problem in question.
Apparently, our discussion which took place a long time ago, and which, as I was pleased to learn, has not been forgotten by you, has nevertheless not cleared up this matter in your mind. I will attempt to do so now, in writing, which imposes both brevity and other limitations. I trust, however, that the following remarks will serve our purpose.
Basically the problem has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Scientific speculation is actually a terminological incongruity; for science, strictly speaking, means knowledge, while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown. Here science has two general methods of inference;
(a) The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two.
(b) The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0 to 100, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101, 200, or 2000.
Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range and with the decrease of this range. Thus, if the known range is between 0 and 100, our inference at 101 has a greater probability than at 1001.
Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent.
That an inference from consequent to antecedent is more speculative than an inference from antecedent to consequent can be demonstrated very simply:
Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the divided and divisor, and the consequent by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result the quotient (the number 2.
However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number 2, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, The answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: (a) 1 plus 1 equals 2; (b) 4-2 equals 2; (c) 1 x 2 equals 2; (d) 4 2 equals 2. Note that if other numbers are to come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 3 also equals 2; 6 3 equals 2 etc. ad infinitum).
Add to this another difficulty, which is prevalent in all methods of induction. Conclusions based on certain known data, when they are ampliative in nature, i.e. when they are extended to unknown areas, can have any validity at all on the assumption of everything else being equal, that is to say on an identity of prevailing conditions, and their action and counter-action upon each other. If we cannot be sure that the variations or changes would bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree; if we cannot be sure that the changes would bear any resemblance in kind; if, furthermore, we cannot be sure that there were not other factors involved such conclusions of inferences are absolutely valueless!
For further illustration, I will refer to one of the points which I believe I mentioned during our conversation. In a chemical reaction, whether fissional or fusional, the introduction of a new catalyzer into the process, however minute the quantity of this new catalyzer may be, may change the whole tempo and form of the chemical process, or start an entirely new process.
We are not yet through with the difficulties inherent in all so-called scientific theories concerning the origin of the world. Let us remember that the whole structure of science is based on observances of reactions and processes in the behavior of atoms in their present state, as they now exist in nature. Scientists deal with conglomerations of billions of atoms as these are already bound together, and as these relate to other existing conglomerations of atoms. Scientists know very little of the atoms in their pristine state; of how one single atom may react on another single atom in a state of separateness; much less of how parts of a single atom may react on other parts of the same or other atoms. One thing science considers certain to the extent that any science can be certain, namely that the reactions of single atoms upon each other is totally different from the reactions of one conglomeration of atoms to another.
We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:
(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.
(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!
(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.
(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.
(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.
In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.
It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.
If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically, it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning. Consider, for example, the so-called evolutionary theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved out of existing atomic and subatomic particles which, by an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet, on which organic life somehow developed also by an evolutionary process, until homo-sapiens emerged. It is hard to understand why one should readily accept the creation of atomic and subatomic particles in a state which is admittedly unknowable and inconceivable, yet should be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, or organisms, or a human being, as we know these to exist.
The argument from the discovery of the fossils is by no means conclusive evidence of the great antiquity of the earth, for the following reasons:
(a) In view of the unknown conditions which existed in prehistoric" times, conditions of atmospheric pressures, temperatures, radioactivity, unknown catalyzers, etc., etc. as already mentioned, conditions that is, which could have caused reactions and changes of an entirely different nature and tempo from those known under the present-day orderly processes of nature, one cannot exclude the possibility that dinosaurs existed 5722 years ago, and became fossilized under terrific natural cataclysms in the course of a few years rather than in millions of years; since we have no conceivable measurements or criteria of calculations under those unknown conditions.
(b) Even assuming that the period of time which the Torah allows for the age of the world is definitely too short for fossilization (although I do not see how one can be so categorical), we can still readily accept the possibility that G-d created ready fossils, bones or skeletons (for reasons best known to him), just as he could create ready living organisms, a complete man, and such ready products as oil, coal or diamonds, without any evolutionary process.
As for the question, if it be true as above (b), why did G-d have to create fossils in the first place? The answer is simple: We cannot know the reason why G-d chose this manner of creation in preference to another, and whatever theory of creation is accepted, the question will remain unanswered. The question, Why create a fossil? is no more valid than the question, Why create an atom? Certainly, such a question cannot serve as a sound argument, much less as a logical basis, for the evolutionary theory.
What scientific basis is there for limiting the creative process to an evolutionary process only, starting with atomic and subatomic particles a theory full of unexplained gaps and complications, while excluding the possibility of creation as given by the Biblical account? For, if the latter possibility be admitted, everything falls neatly into pattern, and all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world becomes unnecessary and irrelevant.
It is surely no argument to question this possibility by saying, Why should the Creator create a finished universe, when it would have been sufficient for Him to create an adequate number of atoms or subatomic particles with the power of colligation and evolution to develop into the present cosmic order? The absurdity of this argument becomes even more obvious when it is made the basis of a flimsy theory, as if it were based on solid and irrefutable arguments overriding all other possibilities.
The question may be asked, If the theories attempting to explain the origin and age of the world are so weak, how could they have been advanced in the first place? The answer is simple. It is a matter of human nature to seek an explanation for everything in the environment, and any theory, however far-fetched, is better than none, at least until a more feasible explanation can be devised.
You may now ask, In the absence of a sounder theory, why then isn't the Biblical account of creation accepted by these scientists? The answer, again, is to be found in human nature. It is a natural human ambition to be inventive and original. To accept the Biblical account deprives one of the opportunity to show one's analytic and inductive ingenuity. Hence, disregarding the Biblical account, the scientist must devise reasons to justify his doing so, and he takes refuge in classifying it with ancient and primitive mythology and the like, since he cannot really argue against it on scientific grounds.
If you are still troubled by the theory of evolution, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it has not a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it has been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life-span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.
The theory of evolution, to which reference has been made, actually has no bearing on the Torah account of Creation. For even if the theory of evolution were substantiated today, and the mutation of species were proven in laboratory tests, this would still not contradict the possibility of the world having been created as stated in the Torah, rather than through the evolutionary process. The main purpose of citing the evolutionary theory was to illustrate how a highly speculative and scientifically unsound theory can capture the imagination of the uncritical, so much so that it is even offered as a scientific" explanation of the mystery of Creation, despite the fact that the theory of evolution itself has not been substantiated scientifically and is devoid of any real scientific basis.
Needless to say, it is not my intent to cast aspersions on science or to discredit the scientific method. Science cannot operate except by accepting certain working theories or hypotheses, even if they cannot be verified, though some theories die hard even when they are scientifically refuted or discredited (the evolutionary theory is a case in point). No technical progress would be possible unless certain physical laws are accepted, even though there is no guaranty that the law will repeat itself. However, I do wish to emphasize, as already mentioned, that science has to do only with theories but no with certainties. All scientific conclusions, or generalizations, can only be probable in a greater or lesser degree according to the precautions taken in the use of the available evidence, and the degree of probability necessarily decreases with the distance from the empirical facts, or with the increase of the unknown variables, etc., as already indicated. If you will bear this in mind, you will readily realize that there can be no real conflict between any scientific theory and the Torah.
My above remarks have turned out somewhat lengthier than intended, but they are still all too brief in relation to the misconception and confusion prevailing in many minds. Moreover, my remarks had to be confined to general observations, as this is hardly the medium to go into greater detail. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to write to me.
To conclude on a note touched upon in our conversation:
The Mitzvah of putting on Tefillin every week-day, on the hand facing the heart, and on the head the seat of the intellect, indicates, among other things, the true Jewish approach: performance first (hand), with sincerity and wholeheartedness, followed by intellectual comprehension (head); i.e. na'aseh first, then v'nishma. May this spirit permeate your intellect and arouse your emotive powers and find expression in every aspect of the daily life, for the essential thing is the dead.
With blessing
/signature
17th Chesvan, 5723
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
My secretary, Dr. Nissan Mindel, has brought your letter of October 23rd, to my attention and I am pleased to not that you took time out to review my letter of the 18th of Teveth, 5722, and to put down in writing your observations thereon. Many thanks.
In reply, I can either follow the order of my letter in the light of your remarks, or take up your remarks as they appear in your letter. I will choose the latter method. In any case I trust that our views will be reconciled, since, as you indicate in the introductory paragraph of your letter, you are in full sympathy with the aims of my said letter, namely, to resolve any doubts that science presents a challenge to the commandments of our Torah.
I must begin with two prefatory remarks: (a) It should be self-evident that my letter did not imply a negation or rejection of science or of the scientific method, In fact, I stated so explicitly towards the end of my said letter. I hope that I will not be suspected of trying to belittle the accomplishments of science, especially as in certain areas the Torah view accords science even more credit than science itself claims; hence many laws in Halacha are geared to scientific conclusions (as e.g. in medicine), assigning to them the validity of objective reality. (b) A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that just as Rabbinic problems should be dealt with by someone who studies Rabbinics, so should scientific problems be left to those who studied science. I do not know how accurate this report is, but I feel I should not ignore it nevertheless, since I agree with this principle. I studied science on the university level from 1928-1932 in Berlin, and from 1934-1938 in Paris, and I have tried to follow scientific developments in certain areas ever since.
Now to your letter: (1) I quite agree, of course, that for the aim mentioned above, scientific theories must be judged by the standards and criteria set up by the scientific method itself. This is precisely the principle I followed in my letter. Hence I purposely omitted from my discussion any references to the scriptures or the Talmud, etc.
(2) Your wrote that you can heartily applaud my emphasis that scientific theories never pretend to give the ultimate truths. But I went further than that. The point was not that science is not (now) in a position to offer ultimate truths, but that modern science itself sets its own limits, declaring that its predictions are, will always be, and in every case, merely Most probable but not certain; it speaks only in terms of Theories. Herein, as you know probably better than I, lies a basic difference of concept between science today and 19th century sciences where in the past scientific conclusions were considered as natural laws" in the strict sense of the term, i.e. determined and certain, modern science no longer holds this view. Parenthetically, this view is at variance with the concept of nature and our own knowledge of it (science) as espoused by the Torah since the idea of miracles implies a change in a fixed order and not the occurrence of a least probable event.
Acknowledging the limitations of science, set by science itself, as above, is sufficient to resolve any doubt that science might present a challenge to Torah. The rest of the discussion in my said letter was mainly my way of further emphasis, but also because, as already mentioned, according to the Torah, i.e. in the realm of faith and not that of science, it is admissible for the conclusions of science to have the validity of natural law".
(3) Next, you deplore what you consider a gratuitous attack on the personal motives of scientists. But no such general attack will be found in my letter. I specifically referred to a certain segment of scientists in a certain area of scientific research, namely those who produce hypothesis about what actually occurred thousands upon thousands of years ago, such as the evolutionary theory of the world, hypothesis which contain no significance for present day research (see in my said letter the paragraph immediately following the paragraph you cite;) hypothesis which are not only highly speculative, but not strictly scientific, and are indeed replete with internal weaknesses. Yet lacking any firm basis, these scientists nevertheless reject absolutely any other explanation (including the Torah narrative): it is the motives of these scientists that I attempted to analyze, since their attitude cannot be equated with a desire to promote the truth, or to promote technological advancement, scientific research, etc. I did not want to accuse them, of anti-religious bias, especially as some of them, including some of the originators of the theory, were religious. I therefore attempted to explain their attitude by a common human trait, the quest for accomplishment and distinction. Incidentally, this natural trait has its positive aspects and is also basic in our religion, since without the incentive of accomplishment, nothing would be accomplished.
(4) Your remark about the misuse of the terms fission and fusion in relation to chemical reactions is, of course, valid and well taken. I trust, however, that the meaning was not unduly affected thereby, since it was twice indicated in that paragraph that the subject was chemical reactions. Undoubtedly, the term combination and decomposition should have been used. Actually, I believe, the different usage of these terms in nuclear and chemical reactions is more conventional than basic. Nevertheless, I should have been mindful of the standard terminology.
Here a word of explanation regarding the terminology of my letter is in order. If the terms or expressions used are not always the standard ones, this is due to (a) the fact that I do not usually dictate my letters in English, and while I subsequently check the translation, the perusal may not always preclude an oversight, as the present instance is a case in point; and (b) the fact that I received my scientific training, as already mentioned, in German and French, and previously in Russian, which may also account for some of the variations.
(5) You refer to my statement that scientists know very little about interactions of isolated atoms and subatomic particles, and also question its relevance to the theories about the dating of the world. The relevance is this. The evolutionary theory as it applies to the origin of our solar system and planet Earth, from which the dating is inferred, presumes (at least in the case of most of the hypothesis) that in the beginning there were atoms and subatomic particles in some pristine state, which then condensed, combined together, etc.
I am aware of the fact that a major part of physics research in this century has been concerned with interactions of individual units ranging from atoms to the most elementary particles known. But as late as 1931, of the subatomic particles only protons and electrons were known and explored". The bubble chambers was constructed only in 1952, and a field ion microscope (by Dr. Muller of Penn State University?), reaching into the realm of the atom and subatomic particles-only in 1962. We have good reason to believe, I think, that just as scientific knowledge was enriched with the introduction of the first microscope, we may expect a similar measure of advancement with the aid of the latest (though it had been preceded by the electronic microscope). Therefore, it is safe to assume that all we have learned in the field of nucleonics in the last few decades is very little by comparison with what we can confidently expect to learn in the next few decades.
(6) You object to my statement that conditions of pressure, temperature, radioactivity, etc. must have been totally different in the early stages supposed by some evolutionists from those existing today, and you assert that those environmental conditions have, for the most part, either been duplicated in the laboratory or observed in natural phenomena. Here, with all due respect, I beg to differ, and I believe the study of the sources will confirm my assertion.
(7) You state that there is no evidence that any radioactive element produces cataclysmic changes, and go on to note that there is a lack of clear distinction in my letter between cosmogony and geochronology. The reason for the lack of such a distinction in my letter is that it is irrelevant to our discussion. The subject geochronology. The reason for the lack of such a distinction in my letter is that it is irrelevant to our discussion. The subject matter of my letter is the theory of evolution as it contradicts the account of Creation in the Torah. According to the Torah, the creation of the whole universe was ex nihili, including the Earth, the sun, etc. The theory of evolution presents instead, a different explanation of the appearance of the universe, solar system and our planet Earth. Now, in evaluating this theory, I have in mind that strength of a chain is measured by its weakest link, and in my letter I attempted to point out some of the weakest links in both areas, cosmology and geochronology. With regard to geology and the changes and upheavals that may have occurred at a time when the whole universe is supposed to have been in a state of violent atomic instability, with worlds in collision, etc., cataclysmic changes cannot be ruled out, such nuclear reactions should have caused changes which would void any evolutionary calculations. Similarly, in the evolution of vegetables, animal and human life on the Earth, radioactive process of such magnitude should have produced sudden changes and transmutations which would normally take long periods of time.
(8) You state, finally, that the crucial point to consider in regard to geochronology is the existence of objects and geological formations in and on the crust of the earth which serve as physically observable clocks, etc. But I have already pointed out in my said letter that such criteria are valid only as of now and for the future, but cannot be applied either scientifically or logically to a primordial state. By way of illustration, though you do not identify any of the objects you are referring to, let us examine radiocarbon dating, since most of the letters and questions I received on this subject pointed to it. This method assumes that the average cosmic ray intensity has remained constant for the whole period of the dating, and that atmospheric mixing is rapid compared to the lifetime of. Now to mention but one flaw in the criterion: it requires that the shielding power (density etc.) remain constant. But the evolution theory is built on the premise that there had been most radical changes. Incidentally, in most recent years geologists in South Africa discovered such a disorder in geological formations in that part of the world that contradicted all the accepted theories of geology. The discovery was publicized at that time, but I do not have the informational media at hand, and I mention this in passing only. I suggest another look in my letter, p.5, par. beg. The theory of evolution...
Should you wish to continue the discussion, please do not hesitate to write me.
With esteem and blessing,
/Signature
P.S. I have just been able to trace and borrow one of your books, The attenuation of Gamma rays and Neutrons in Reactor Shields. May I say that I was greatly impressed with the effort, material and clarity of presentation. Incidentally, I noted in it your observations about the discrepancies between theory and experimentation which I found more than once in your book. Such a statement as Not only is the simplest organism an incredibly complicated entity whose chemistry and physics are barely glimpsed at (the underscoring is mine), but the classical scientific pattern of experimentation is necessarily not available (ditto) in studying radiation efforts is very significant and has a direct bearing on the theory of evolution which involves an age of unimaginable radioactivity both in the universe and our planet Earth.
B.H.
18th of Cheshvan, 5723
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Sholom Ubroche:
In addition to my letter of yesterday's date, which was confined to a purely scientific discussion, it is this second letter which will express my real approach to you, the Torah approach of one Jew to another.
It is surely unnecessary to emphasize to you that the basic principle of the Jewish way of life is "Know Him in all your ways." This principle has been enunciated in the Talmud, Early and Late Responsa, until it has been formulated as a peak-din the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, sec. 231). It is there explained that it is the life's mission of every Jew to acknowledge G-d even in the simplest pursuits of the daily life, such as eating, drinking, etc. How much more does this apply to the mere essential aspects of one's life, especially in the case of one who has been endowed with special qualifications, knowledge and distinction, etc., all of which place him in a position of influence. These are gifts of Divine Providence, which the Jew is duty-bound to consecrate to the service of G-d, to disseminate G-dliness through the Torah and Mitzvoth to the utmost of his ability, in compliance of the commandments and the great principle of our Torah. And since, according to the Torah view, everything in the world is ordered and measured and nothing is superfluous, the duty and Zechus of every Jew are commensurate with his capacities and opportunities.
I have only seen you briefly, but I have formed some impressions, which have been augmented by your book, the only one I have been able to obtain so far, and by what I have heard about you and your station in the academic world and otherwise. I have no doubt that you have unusual opportunities to disseminate the Torah and Mitzvoth among wide circles of Jewish scientists, students and laymen.
In recent years, especially in the U. S. A., we have witnessed two tendencies among Jewish youth, striving in opposite directions. On the one hand there has been an intensified quest for the Truth, a yearning for closer identification with our people and our eternal values. At the other extreme, the pull of assimilation, intermarriage, etc. has been gaining, too. Aside from the colleges and universities in a few major cities, the situation in campuses in regard to Kashrus, Shabbos, etc. is too painful to contemplate not to mention the widespread confusion and misconceptions in respect of the most basic tenets of our faith.
If the first of the above mentioned tendencies were to be stimulated and fully utilized at this auspicious time, the chances are very good that it would gain momentum and grow wider, and in time also deeper. If, as our Sages say, to save one soul is to save a whole world, how much more so to save so many lost Jewish souls.
I want to express to you my fervent hope and, if necessary, my urgent appeal also that you put the whole weight of your prestige as a leading scientist behind a resolute effort in the cause of the Torah and Mitzvoth. I am informed that you have been elected as this year's President of the organization of Jewish orthodox scientists. You could set the pace for the entire organization, individually and collectively, to follow your example, and set in motion a "chain reaction. "
I will conclude with a well-known saying of the Baal Shem Tov, which I frequently heard from my father-in-law of saintly memory: "G-d sends down to earth a soul, which is truly a part of G-dliness, to sojourn, embodied, for seventy-eighty years on this earth, in order to render a favor to another Jew, materially or spiritually." If a single favor justifies a whole earth bound life, how great is the Zechus of a consistent effort to help a fellow-Jew, and many of them, to find their true way, the way of the Torah and Mitzvoth in their day-to-day living.
May G-d grant that your words coming from the heart will penetrate the many hearts which are ready and eager to respond, and may G-d grant you success in this as in all your other endeavors for yourself and your family.
With blessing,
-
lubab, I love you, but you're in complete denial if you honestly believe the Earth and the Universe is 5767 years old.
The soul of Man is 5767 years old.
The Universe is BILLIONS of years old.
It's my understanding that's in agreement with Torah.
There were only 3 creations.
The creation of the physical Universe and the laws of nature.
Then later, the souls of animals.
And finally, the soul of Man.
It's the creation of the soul of Man, 5767 years ago, that we celebrate on Rosh Hashanah.
The insistence that the Earth is only 5767 years old is very disturbing.
5767 years are from adam creation, without counting the 6 days of creation, those six days acorrding to Gerald Schroeder's teory in his book "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom" was 15.75 bilion years :
Day one :8 Bilion years
Day two :4 Bilion years
Day three:2 Bilion years
Day four : 1 bilion years
Day five: 0.5 bilion years
Day six:0.25 bilion years
In total 15.75 bilion years, most of scientists say the world is 16-15 bilion years old .
Read his book and you'll understand his teory .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
-
Lubab, that's a very interesting article thanks for sharing it with us.
However, it does not support this:
"Scientists are already admitting that evolution is not what they've tried to convince us it is, and that humans seemed to have been around first and at the same time as the apes. Heck we've been saying this all along!"
Homo erectus and homo habilis were not humans. Humans are homo sapiens. It doesn't say in the article that humans were first. It just shows how some scientists are starting to understand that evolution wasn't such a strictly linear process but it was more messy and there were overlaps in the existence of the proto-sapiens species.
This doesn't weaken evolutionary theory, if anything it strengthens it.
The article suggests that it's just a refinement of evolutionary theory, not a refutation of it.
-
evolutionary theory can't proove that humans have any connection the the monkeys .
Let me ask you a question - How much skeletons of dinosaurs do we found ? a lot, and the skeletons are complete, now, how much skeletons of "human monkeys" do we find ? not a lot, and the skeletons are bearly completed, and here's another question, why we don't see the "human monkeys" that walks erect, but we see monkeys-the first level of human, and human-the last level ?
-
evolutionary theory can't proove that humans have any connection the the monkeys .
Let me ask you a question - How much skeletons of dinosaurs do we found ? a lot, and the skeletons are complete, now, how much skeletons of "human monkeys" do we find ? not a lot, and the skeletons are bearly completed, and here's another question, why we don't see the "human monkeys" that walks erect, but we see monkeys-the first level of human, and human-the last level ?
Dexter if you think this then you don't fully understand evolutionary theory. These "human monkeys" you're talking about are homo habilis, homo erectus, and all the other proto-human species. We have mountains of their skeletons up to millions of years ago of these proto-humans.
Monkeys are not the first level of humans Dexter! We did not evolve from monkeys. Whoever told you that didn't know what he was talking about. That's a common myth that people try to use to discredit evolution, but it's not truthful.
Humans and apes are descended from a common primate ancestor. This common ancestor was not in recent history but was millions of years ago. Humans branched off in their own direction and the great apes branched off in their own direction. We are not descended from any of the primates currently on the planet or any of the primates who habited the planet in recent history. We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, how could it be possible that we are not related to them in some way?
You can choose to believe it or not, I just wanted to clear that up.
-
Thanks, but you didn't understand me, i'll try to clear that .
Let's say that's the evulotion scale :
(http://www.green-party.co.il/news/pics/olmert_shark.jpg)--------------------(http://www.hameir.org/dst/images/Rabbi%20Meir%20Kahane%201.jpg)
Monkey Human
Now those lines between monkey and human are the "human monkey" acorrding to evulotion .
Now, those "mountains of their skeletons up to millions of years ago of these proto-humans" are looking like this :
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/image.jpg)
And for some reason, someone decide it's a "human-monkey" skeleton :
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image008.jpg)(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image006.gif)
While in reality, they CAN'T know how the flesh of those skeleton look like, i'm sure it was human, why to think it was full of fur ? Maybe they were black people skeletons ?
They use their imagination, no prooves, for exemple, those are the picture of a skelleton, but the scientists think it was monkey...or human..or money human...but they cant know it !
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image017.jpg)
-
Lubab, that's a very interesting article thanks for sharing it with us.
However, it does not support this:
"Scientists are already admitting that evolution is not what they've tried to convince us it is, and that humans seemed to have been around first and at the same time as the apes. Heck we've been saying this all along!"
Homo erectus and homo habilis were not humans. Humans are homo sapiens. It doesn't say in the article that humans were first. It just shows how some scientists are starting to understand that evolution wasn't such a strictly linear process but it was more messy and there were overlaps in the existence of the proto-sapiens species.
This doesn't weaken evolutionary theory, if anything it strengthens it.
The article suggests that it's just a refinement of evolutionary theory, not a refutation of it.
I think that's just them trying to save face. How can you admit that homosapiens and homo habilis existing in an overlapping time period and then still they that one evolved from the other over millions of years. The artilce itself recognizes the fallacy of that.
If evolotion is so messy as this article suggests than it ceases to be the simplest explanation for how we got to this point and that makes it unscientific. Science is supposed to always look for the most simple explanation of a phenomena.
The more their evolutionary tree get's mucked up the more the Bible's version of the events looks to be the most simple and logical.
-
The Theory of Evolution considers snakes once were legged creatures, that some dinosaurs mutated their scales into feathers and became the various species of birds, and that ocean dwelling organisms eventually crawled up on to land and mutated into land creatures, eventually standing erect, etc....
If this is so, why is there not one piece of scientific evidence proving these various stages of evolution, showing each "step" in the for the many mutations necessary during the evolution into the various species?
In other words, we find fossilized dinosaurs, we find fossilized birds, but where are the fossils of the "intermediate" species with only half of their scales changed to feathers, etc...?
It's not possible, nor is it in accord with evolutionary theory, for there to have been dinosaurs one day, and one year later fully developed birds which evolved from the small dinosaurs, without leaving some fossil records to prove the theory!
Answers?
p.s.--the dinosaurs were not made extinct by an asteroid, neither were they wiped out by climate change. Extraterrestials once landed here and rounded every single one of them up just like in a "cattle drive"; herded them into "Mother Ships", and flew them back to faraway galaxies, where they barbecued all of them and ate them.
p.s.s. -- every now and then, communist academicians of dubious sexual orientation, find the bones of some negrito or pigmy cannibals, and immediately jump to conclusions (to selfishly further their petty careers) and call up National Geographic with their "latest proof" of "Lucy", or "Cindy...Mother Africa of all humanity", or some other such absolute ridiculousness as to make a sane person vomit.
Just like last year when fools with degrees announced their "discovery" of "an hitherto unknown race of Hobbit-Humans in Indonesia"!....only to admit later that they weren't human bones at all, but instead belonged to some breed of large rabbits or guinea pigs that lived near the volcanoes 50 million years ago. If you folks don't believe me, just continue to follow along with the "latest research in human evolution", and soon you'll see that all of these "discoveries" are nothing more than a media circus akin to the likes of reading what Lindsey Lohan ate in prison, etc...
-
Thanks, but you didn't understand me, i'll try to clear that .
Let's say that's the evulotion scale :
(http://www.green-party.co.il/news/pics/olmert_shark.jpg)--------------------(http://www.hameir.org/dst/images/Rabbi%20Meir%20Kahane%201.jpg)
Monkey Human
Now those lines between monkey and human are the "human monkey" acorrding to evulotion .
Now, those "mountains of their skeletons up to millions of years ago of these proto-humans" are looking like this :
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/image.jpg)
And for some reason, someone decide it's a "human-monkey" skeleton :
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image008.jpg)(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image006.gif)
While in reality, they CAN'T know how the flesh of those skeleton look like, i'm sure it was human, why to think it was full of fur ? Maybe they were black people skeletons ?
They use their imagination, no prooves, for exemple, those are the picture of a skelleton, but the scientists think it was monkey...or human..or money human...but they cant know it !
(http://www.haemet.net/articles/creation/evolution_of_man/truth_man_apes_skeletons_files/image017.jpg)
Hehe, funny pictures.
The shapes of the proto-humans DO look monkeyish though. They have protruding jaws, smaller cranial cavities, smaller foreheads, larger ridges (where your eyebrows) are. They look completely different from modern humans and yes, they do appear more ape-like.
The people who reconstruct the faces are experts at reconstructing them to get the best understanding of how they originally looked. They're not a bunch of pseudo-scientists, we're talking about the foremost experts in the world who are reconstructing these skeletons. Is it going to be 100% exact? No, of course not. Maybe they weren't as hairy or maybe the hair was a different color, who knows? But we still have a very good approximation of the way these proto-humans probably looked.
if you look at one of these skeletons, the bones are much thicker and not as refined as human bones. They have longer arms and shorter legs, their heads have more "ape-like features". You can go look at a skeleton that hasn't been reconstructed to see this clearly.
-
MassuhDGoodName, with all respect, the signs of these intermediate species can not only be seen in fossils, but in animals alive on the earth today.
Why are there humans that are starting to be born without appendices?
There are species of river dolphins that still have vestiges of limbs and there are still vestiges of limbs on whales.
Of course there are always going to be bogus evolutionary theories, but that doesn't discount evolution completely.
-
I need to read more about evulotion, I ghess sites of Creationism influinced me too much because i'm not so familier with this subject, thanks Ehud ;)
-
How can you admit that homosapiens and homo habilis existing in an overlapping time period and then still they that one evolved from the other over millions of years. The artilce itself recognizes the fallacy of that.
If evolotion is so messy as this article suggests than it ceases to be the simplest explanation for how we got to this point and that makes it unscientific. Science is supposed to always look for the most simple explanation of a phenomena.
The more their evolutionary tree get's mucked up the more the Bible's version of the events looks to be the most simple and logical.
First of all, homo sapiens are homo habilis NEVER existed at the same time, at least according to this article. The article discusses homo habilis and homo erectus. How could homo habilis and homo erectus existed at the same time? Because there were some who evolved into homo erectus and some, maybe in a geographically isolated location, who stayed as homo habilis. You see this sort of "macro-evolution" every day with various species all over the world.
Just because some creatures evolved doesn't mean that there can't still be the original members that they evolved from. To think that it has to be that way is a logical fallacy when it comes to evolution.
There are plenty of examples on the earth today of animals that are related closely, one evolved from the other, but the original animal still exists.
There are birds on geographically separate islands where one bird evolved from the other in order to meet the needs of the local environment, but the other bird on the other island (the one that the other bird evolved from) still remains in its original form.
I'm sure there are other examples of this, I don't claim to be an evolutionary expert. :)
-
I need to read more about evulotion, I ghess sites of Creationism influinced me too much because i'm not so familier with this subject, thanks Ehud ;)
You have plenty of time to learn about it if you seek to, Dexter. ;)
The amount you already know far exceeds not only people your age, but even educated adults!
-
I don't believe evolution and the Torah to be at odds at all.
When G-d created man in his image, that doesn't mean that he created homo sapiens at that time. There were homo sapiens that were around before that time, but they didn't necessarily have the capability of understanding G-d. That's what I believe the Torah to be saying.
Not coincidentally, there was a rapid genetic transformation that occurred around 6000 years ago that gave homo sapiens the ability to greatly expand the cortex of his brain, which controls abstract reasoning among other things, and which would give him the ability to understand G-d.
-
Re: "...There are species of river dolphins that still have vestiges of limbs and there are still vestiges of limbs on whales..."
Calling small useless nubs "vestiges", is simply projecting one's view of an "evolutionary theory" on to a specimen, without offering proof that The Creator simply "designed the species intelligently" from the very outset.
Perhaps the nubs have a purpose that only Ha'Shem understands, considering that no academician has ever brought forth a fossil of a humpback whale with shrinking legs wearing rubber boots to keep its feet dry.
Humans being born without apendices indicates the symptoms of drug usage (both pharmaceutical as well as illegal), and the deleterious effects of constant electromagnetic radiation bombarding humanity. It is certainly not an "evolutionary" development to prove that humans don't need to walk anymore now that they can buy a car.
-
Re: "...There are species of river dolphins that still have vestiges of limbs and there are still vestiges of limbs on whales..."
Calling small useless nubs "vestiges", is simply projecting one's view of an "evolutionary theory" on to a specimen, without offering proof that The Creator simply "designed the species intelligently" from the very outset.
Perhaps the nubs have a purpose that only Ha'Shem understands, considering that no academician has ever brought forth a fossil of a humpback whale with shrinking legs wearing rubber boots to keep its feet dry.
Humans being born without apendices indicates the symptoms of drug usage (both pharmaceutical as well as illegal), and the deleterious effects of constant electromagnetic radiation bombarding humanity. It is certainly not an "evolutionary" development to prove that humans don't need to walk anymore now that they can buy a car.
What you say is possible as well of course. I'm not trying to put forward anything definitive, here. Just things to consider.
-
When G-d created man in his image, that doesn't mean that he created homo sapiens at that time. There were homo sapiens that were around before that time, but they didn't necessarily have the capability of understanding G-d. That's what I believe the Torah to be saying.
Not coincidentally, there was a rapid genetic transformation that occurred around 6000 years ago that gave homo sapiens the ability to greatly expand the cortex of his brain, which controls abstract reasoning among other things, and which would give him the ability to understand G-d.
Some of this stuff you write in this post is very problematic with the Midrashic and Talmudic view of the account of creation.
In the Torah view. Adam was the first. He was human as we are. And he was also the most capable of knowing G-d in many ways.
-
Some might be interested to know that in the Torah view, apes evolved from humans, not the other way around.
G-d turned Kain into an ape when he killed Hevel (Abel), the Midrash tells us.
-
Regardless of how one feels about the validity of the theory of evolution, there are simply too many proofs that the age of the Universe measures in the billions of years for any credible belief that the cosmos is only 5767 years old, to be legitimately maintained.
What I'm curious about is where the idea that Torah tells us the Universe is only a few thousand years old comes from.
Why is a Universe that is billions of years old incompatible with Torah ?
-
Regardless of how one feels about the validity of the theory of evolution, there are simply too many proofs that the age of the Universe measures in the billions of years for any credible belief that the cosmos is only 5767 years old, to be legitimately maintained.
What I'm curious about is where the idea that Torah tells us the Universe is only a few thousand years old comes from.
Why is a Universe that is billions of years old incompatible with Torah ?
Rabbi Blech says the Earth is billions of years old because Torah says G_d created the world in six 'periods' or phases not actual Earth 'days'.
Modern man with free will is only 6,000 years old even though humanoid creatures existed before then.
-
lubab, I love you, but you're in complete denial if you honestly believe the Earth and the Universe is 5767 years old.
The soul of Man is 5767 years old.
The Universe is BILLIONS of years old.
It's my understanding that's in agreement with Torah.
There were only 3 creations.
The creation of the physical Universe and the laws of nature.
Then later, the souls of animals.
And finally, the soul of Man.
It's the creation of the soul of Man, 5767 years ago, that we celebrate on Rosh Hashanah.
The insistence that the Earth is only 5767 years old is very disturbing.
What about the scientist we were discussing a few weeks ago who disagrees with evolution theories?
You stated: "Regarding Gerald Schroeder:
Here is a streaming audio link to a symposium Dr. Schroeder gave in Jerusalem, discussing the apparent contradictions of the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe as revealed in Genesis, with what modern science has to say on the matter.
Dr. Schroeder makes an extremely lucid and powerful argument showing why the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe, are actually supported by the latest scientific findings.
This is truly an amazing tape and must listening for those interested in this subject matter.
http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3
"
I didn't hear the "Ask JTF" but a few weeks ago, but I believe DannieCookie asked Chaim about question. Do you recall what Chaim's response was?
-
Rabbi Blech says the Earth is billions of years old because Torah says G_d created the world in six 'periods' or phases not actual Earth 'days'.
Modern man with free will is only 6,000 years old even though humanoid creatures existed before then.
This makes sense. It was 6 days from G-d's perspective in the center of the universe. Time is relative to where it's measured from. On earth it may have seemed like millions of years but from the center of the universe only 6 days.
-
GD might have have done anything unexplainable...and yes that might be true...
but i have to otherwise respectfully disagree with you. Accepting science doesn't mean rejecting Gd...Accepting science which might sound we are rejecting Torah may simply be our misinterpretation of Torah.
Evolution can be true. G-d might have caused it. Lubab What do you think about the dinosaurs? Do you think that the world is literally 5767 years old?
Yes I do think the world is 5767 years old.
The dinosaurs may have existed and been destroyed by the flood. Or G-d may have created the world with those fossils already in the ground.
See: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=1276
-
Science is Gods method of logically puzzling the world together.....there isn't any need to not believe in a creator just because "science" seems to be the answer. Who created science?
-
I, personally, believe evolution to be a total sham for the "enlightened" to discredit HaShem. If one looks into the dictionary "evolution" or "evolve" means to change. If I said that a worm, under the proper environmental conditions, can change into a man in a flash....you'd laugh me under the table. Now the starting DNA of a worm does not change if one knows genetics and the end variable; a man's genetics are also stable therefore the only variable condition is time. So if a worm cannot change/"evolove" into a man in a matter of seconds, hours, days, years ect. why then is it all the sudden believable if one says a million years? The facts do not add up.
They have found many bones from crocodiles that date back to the age of the dinosaurs but they have not changed whatsoever when compared with the skeletons of today's crocodiles. Therefore they have not "evolved" at all but a monkey "evolved" into a man? It is a load of rubbish that wouldn't have gotten off of the ground if Marx, and the other enlightened academics, didn't take to its dialectical theories to disprove G-d.
Every example of "evolutionary" man is a fraud: Lucy, Piltdown man, Navada man, Neanderthal Man etc. all frauds...
imo... HaShem created different species and for whatever reason he got rid of them and started anew... there is no evidence that man existed when the dinosaurs were walking the Earth therfore they must have appeared after but not "evolved".... slime doesn't "evolve" into an elephant.... sorry.. my ranting...
Our current understanding of evolution isn't as you described above. All living creatures have DNA and genes which are capable of undergoing mutations for the better or for the worst. Some genes and behaviors have allowed certain family of species to survive and continue creating the same progeny which eventually resulted in a new species. This doesn't take over night..takes millions of years possibly.
Listen, Gd created us from dust...What is dust made out of? Carbon, Water, Nitrogen, Oxygen Hydrogen. You add some electricity and methane gas to that, you can pretty much create the building blocks of life: protein, nucleic acids etc...and that's the beginning ..bacteria ->single celled eucaryotes --> etc. over billions of years that's how humans came to be..that may be Gd's magical way of creating life and all animals and plants...IF Gd wanted to just go zap here and zap there, it wouldn't seem as special to you and me. However, the magical way to start with one cell without a nucleus until it gets to things that look like what we have today and humans which can create big tall buildings and make machines move on their own..and wow! the things we humans have done! Now that's more amazing...a miracle...a huge huge huge huge..that Gd isn't just all powerful...that He's clever...the way He build's things. And the fact that He can give humans the ability to create beautiful music and beautiful art and beautiful poetry...love...etc...i mean from a single cell prokaryote you get us..WOW. I mean if we understood Gd to just create life as Zap here and Zap there...we has humans would never undertand patience. Gd was patient in the way He created us...as we all should be patient in waiting for the Moshiach.
-
I need to read more about evulotion, I ghess sites of Creationism influinced me too much because i'm not so familier with this subject, thanks Ehud ;)
Dexter, evolution will show you Gd's masterpiece..not disprove it.
-
Some might be interested to know that in the Torah view, apes evolved from humans, not the other way around.
G-d turned Kain into an ape when he killed Hevel (Abel), the Midrash tells us.
Fascinating! Never thought of it that way...certain animals evolved from humans...
however...as it is written in the Torah, Animals were created first, THEN Adam THEN Eve.
-
lubab, I love you, but you're in complete denial if you honestly believe the Earth and the Universe is 5767 years old.
The soul of Man is 5767 years old.
The Universe is BILLIONS of years old.
It's my understanding that's in agreement with Torah.
There were only 3 creations.
The creation of the physical Universe and the laws of nature.
Then later, the souls of animals.
And finally, the soul of Man.
It's the creation of the soul of Man, 5767 years ago, that we celebrate on Rosh Hashanah.
The insistence that the Earth is only 5767 years old is very disturbing.
What about the scientist we were discussing a few weeks ago who disagrees with evolution theories?
You stated: "Regarding Gerald Schroeder:
Here is a streaming audio link to a symposium Dr. Schroeder gave in Jerusalem, discussing the apparent contradictions of the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe as revealed in Genesis, with what modern science has to say on the matter.
Dr. Schroeder makes an extremely lucid and powerful argument showing why the Biblical account of creation, and the age of the Universe, are actually supported by the latest scientific findings.
This is truly an amazing tape and must listening for those interested in this subject matter.
http://ra.colo.idt.net/simpletoremember/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3
"
I didn't hear the "Ask JTF" but a few weeks ago, but I believe DannieCookie asked Chaim about question. Do you recall what Chaim's response was?
Ooo, good memory..i sense I have a fan amongst the midst of JTFers ;)..
Chaim's basic response was, "Who cares?" Gd caused miracles..He wants us to be a certain way for the ushering of the Moshiach.
-
Rabbi Blech says the Earth is billions of years old because Torah says G_d created the world in six 'periods' or phases not actual Earth 'days'.
Modern man with free will is only 6,000 years old even though humanoid creatures existed before then.
This makes sense. It was 6 days from G-d's perspective in the center of the universe. Time is relative to where it's measured from. On earth it may have seemed like millions of years but from the center of the universe only 6 days.
That's pretty much what Dr. Schroeder postulates.
Schroeder stipulates that Genesis should be interpreted as if there are TWO biblical clocks at work.
The first clock begins ticking when Hashem creates the Universe. Time on this clock is measured from Hashem's perspective looking forward. Yes, the term 'day' is used (the Rambam even specifically states that a 'day' consists of 24 'hours') to quantify time as measured by this clock. However, it's important to note and essential to understand that the first 6 'days' as depicted in Genesis is not written from a human perspective. It can not be taken literally in it's entirety and is certainly partly written in parable form. This view is supported not only by the Rambam, but also the Ramban, Kabbalists, and other sages.
A separate, second clock begins ticking when Hashem creates Adam's soul and from that point on time is measured in understandable human terms looking backwards.
Using the two clock hypothesis (which was not originally advanced by Schroeder, he's merely repeating what our sages taught us centuries ago) in conjunction with modern scientific knowledge, the age of the Universe can be determined to be approximately 15.75 billion years.
So obviously the Torah is correct, and the apparent conflict of 5765 versus 15.75 billion easily resolved.
-
Rabbi Blech says the Earth is billions of years old because Torah says G_d created the world in six 'periods' or phases not actual Earth 'days'.
Modern man with free will is only 6,000 years old even though humanoid creatures existed before then.
This makes sense. It was 6 days from G-d's perspective in the center of the universe. Time is relative to where it's measured from. On earth it may have seemed like millions of years but from the center of the universe only 6 days.
That's pretty much what Dr. Schroeder postulates.
Schroeder stipulates that Genesis should be interpreted as if there are TWO biblical clocks at work.
The first clock begins ticking when Hashem creates the Universe. Time on this clock is measured from Hashem's perspective looking forward. Yes, the term 'day' is used (the Rambam even specifically states that a 'day' consists of 24 'hours') to quantify time as measured by this clock. However, it's important to note and essential to understand that the first 6 'days' as depicted in Genesis is not written from a human perspective. It can not be taken literally in it's entirety and is certainly partly written in parable form. This view is supported not only by the Rambam, but also the Ramban, Kabbalists, and other sages.
A separate, second clock begins ticking when Hashem creates Adam's soul and from that point on time is measured in understandable human terms looking backwards.
Using the two clock hypothesis (which was not originally advanced by Schroeder, he's merely repeating what our sages taught us centuries ago) in conjunction with modern scientific knowledge, the age of the Universe can be determined to be approximately 15.75 billion years.
So obviously the Torah is correct, and the apparent conflict of 5765 versus 15.75 billion easily resolved.
1. While I'm not expert in this issue, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has mentioned in a few places that when one starts to say that the 7 days of creation were unlike our days of creation it creates a real halachic problem, because the way we celebrate Shabbos must be modeled after what G-d did. Don't ask me more about it because I don't know, but there is a theological problem there.
2. If one is willing to accept that Adam was created a grown man as the Torah describes, and the trees and the animals were made in fully grown form, why is it so hard for people to believe that G-d made a fully grown world too? A world that if scientifically examined looks much older than it really is just as if we would scientifically examine Adam on his first day we'd conclude he was in his thirties or whatever.
3. If you are willing to trudge through the long articles I posted you will see that the tremendous extrapolation involved in radio-active dating makes it one of the least reliable forms of scientific data you could have.
4. Obviously, as mentioned before this debate has nothing do with if there is a G-d or not because evolution or not, there must have been a Creator to get it all started. Even if you believe in evolution you still must grapple with who created the first thing that evolved.
-
Point 3 is the only one I agree with since there must have been a creator for evolution to have worked so evolution proves the existence of G-d. It is obvious from the Torah that the 6 days of creation are not 24 hr days, but merely 6 time periods happening in billions of years.
-
Point 2/ is a brilliant piece of logic, too. I'm surprised I've never heard it before.
-
It is obvious from the Torah that the 6 days of creation are not 24 hr days, but merely 6 time periods happening in billions of years.
It's not obvious to me. What are you referring to?
On the contrary, I think the simple reading of the text tells us it was "days". And days are days and the Torah does not leave its simple meaning. ("Ein Mikro Yotzei Medei Pshuto").
-
I've told you this before already. The Torah doesn't deviate from it's simple reading so go read it and you will see it is impossible for the days to be 24hr days. The Sun, Moon and the days, nights and seasons the luminaries delineate were created on the fourth day so it was impossible for evening and morning to have happened literally on the first 3 days. How can you have day and night without a sun or a moon?
-
"While I'm not expert in this issue, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has mentioned in a few places that when one starts to say that the 7 days of creation were unlike our days of creation it creates a real halachic problem, because the way we celebrate Shabbos must be modeled after what G-d did. Don't ask me more about it because I don't know, but there is a theological problem there."
I just want to make a comment on #1, Lubab.
First, I want to say that I love you like a brother and I love the heart you use whenever you post to all of us.
I don't believe that there is that much of a theological problem with the concept that Gd created the universe in 7 billion years (give or take a few quadrillion) instead of 7 days. Gd might have decided to stop creating things once He created human beings and therefore rested and allowed human beings to pretty much do the rest of creation until the Moshiach....and as we can say this 7th day isn't taking 24 hours...it's taking 5700+ years so far.
-
Brilliant point dannycookie. I want to add that isn't it strange that the Torah doesn't say "and there was evening and morning; 7 days" like it does for the first 6 days? According to Lubab, the Torah should have said this since the 7th day passed. However, the truth is that the 7th day has not been completed yet and we are living in the 7th day so the Torah never said that the sun set completing the 7th day since it has not been completed. This is definite proof that the days mean billions of years.
-
hey jdlforever...i'm still figuring out why on the second of creation Gd never said it was good, but on the third day, He said whatever He did good two times! Akha! You can't eat your soup with a fork!
-
I've told you this before already. The Torah doesn't deviate from it's simple reading so go read it and you will see it is impossible for the days to be 24hr days. The Sun, Moon and the days, nights and seasons the luminaries delineate were created on the fourth day so it was impossible for evening and morning to have happened literally on the first 3 days. How can you have day and night without a sun or a moon?
Ah! I was waiting for someone to ask that question. Good job.
Now, to understand that you need to understand the difference between measurable time and the flow of time.
You see 24 hours is still 24 hours whether there is a sun or not to represent that fact. The setting and rising of the sun and our watches all represents measurable time, not the flow of time which exists separate and distinct from those things.
I will post an article that explains this in detail.
-
Here is the article:
The Time before Time
There are three levels of time: The “order” of time, the essential flow of time, and measurable time. The first is not yet physical time, rather the spiritual source of it. The infinite light of G-d before the tzimtzum transcends even the “order” of time. The kav creates the order of time. The order of time begins with the “first desire” or “first thought” and extends until malchus of Atzilus. Then, malchus of Atzilus creates actual, physical time when it descends to the created worlds, BY”A.
First comes the order of time. The order of time is the creation of a structure and laws that will govern creation. For example, the creation of the sfiros, the limitation to ten, the definition of each sfirah, the creation of opposites, such as chesed and gevurah, and the order of the sfiros (chesed, gevurah, tiferes, etc.). Basically, because G-d decided that the expansion of chesed opposes the constriction of gevurah, they cannot occur simultaneously. Therefore, chesed has to come first, then stop and leave, before gevurah can begin to act. The analogy for this is breathing.
Since the lungs expand and contract to breath, and just expanding or just contracting won’t work, and since expansion and contraction are opposites that can’t occur simultaneously, it takes time to breath. There has to be an inhale and only after that an exhale and only after that the next inhale. Thus the constraints or “rules” that govern breathing necessitates a before and after—thus time. Similarly, the constraints, rules, or structure that G-d set up for the world necessitates time. Nevertheless, there is no actual time at this point, only a series of rules that, if a world were conducted by them, will necessitate time.
Then, when the physical world is created there is the flow of time and measurable time. The flow of time is created by the “running and returning” of the creative energy. That is, since each moment has its own unique life force, and since the previous life force must leave before the next can enter, time is born. However, this essential passing of time and division of the life force, is imperceptible. This time only has meaning to us when it causes changes or motion in physical beings. The effect of time on physical beings, that is, their change and motion, allows for measurable time.
For example, imagine an empty flip book. There would be no real perception of how fast the pages were being flipped. On the other hand, when there are images on the flipbook, the speed of the figures motion and change gives us a tangible feeling of time. If the book were flipped too fast or too slow, we would notice. (Although this is only because we already have an idea of how fast things should go from our own experience of time in our own movements and in the world around us.)
Thus, the “order” of time existed before the world was created. Rather the order of time existed as a higher spiritual creation, as did the Torah. They came into being with the emanation of the sfiros after the first tzimtzum. The “flow” of time began immediately with the existence of the physical world, and they are inseparable (within the current structure of creation). The “measurement” of time began (primarily) with the setting of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies in orbit. The sun gives us the year, the moon the month, and entire universe gives day and night, and then based on these standards, smaller portions of time are set by subdividing these standards. (Incidentally, the origin of the week is G-d’s creation of the world.
There is no natural source for this. Likewise, the division into hours is according to the divisions of the combination of the Divine names—the Tetragrammaton for day and Adnay for night. These also have no natural source.) Of course, these are only signs of time, like a watch, but not time itself. Thus the length of time that it takes for the sun to orbit the earth (one day) existed before the sun was set in orbit. On the contrary, if G-d did not know how long this time was, how could He set the sun to orbit for precisely that long. This is the meaning of the first three days of creation, before the sun and moon were set in their orbits. For G-d already knew the “order” of time, which is the real source and measure of the physical “flow” of time.
(Unfortunately, many people, especially those that study the Theory of Relativity, confuse the “flow” of time and “measurable” time, making them one thing. The Theory of Relativity deals only with measurable time (and measurable space) and not the ultimate existence of time (or space). Thus such conclusions as that of the Twin Paradox (that someone will age slower than their twin if accelerated nearly to the speed of light) are incorrect, and indeed, absurd. Einstein built the speed of light into his Theory, by choosing to define two evens as occurring simultaneously if I see them both at the same time when standing exactly between them.
For example, if lightning hit two places along a railroad track, I would know if they hit at the same time, if I saw them both strike at the same time when standing between them. The correct definition of time should be measured by two people standing with stopwatches at the two spots. This way the speed of light and any variations in it are negligible. His same definition could be applied to sound (especially for a blind man)—that something’s occurrence is judged by when I hear it. This would mean that a plane flying faster than the speed of sound does not fly by him until he hears it, a few seconds later. Were the mathematical Theory of Relativity applied to this definition of time, we could conclude that it is impossible to break the sound barrier (as many say about the speed of light), however, this is not really true.)
Higher than Time in Time
The “first thought” is the general form or concept of what the world will be like. It includes all of time at once. Then the kav divides this first thought into ten circles (the sfiros of eggullim). This creates the order of the sfiros. Then, each of these ten are divided into more particulars and given a more rigid form in atik and arich and so on down through Atzilus. Finally, in malchus of Atzilus each division (sfirah) includes one thousand of our years. Each division of z”a is one year (365) of malchus’s divisions, each division of av”a is 2,000 of z”a’s divisions, and atik is already infinite time. (This order of time is all created in A”K, but it is revealed gradually. The inner point of the first thought of A”K is revealed in atik, the circles are revealed in arich and the yosher of A”K is revealed in av”a, z”a, and malchus of Atzilus.) Thus, A”K is the source for the order of time (and the kav is the source of the source). Then the order of time is in Atzilus. But none of this is actual time yet. Similarly, in the actual time in the created worlds, one day here is ten or fifteen in Yetzirah, and one hundred in Briyah.
In order to understand how this can be—how much time can be fit into a short period we have to understand some basic concepts of how time (and space) are created. We previously explained that the division of a flow (of energy or something) into parts that must come one after the other creates time. This is compared to the inhale-exhale of breathing. Likewise, the flame of a candle takes time to burn because it wants to go up and down at the same time. It’s nature is to rise, but it’s fuel is below, thus if flickers, jumping and returning again and again. This dual process is what makes it take so long for a candle to burn. Were the burning a single process—only rising or only descending—the candle would burn instantly.
This can seemingly be compared to a teacher explaining a concept to a student. The teacher understands the entire concept at once, as a single point. However, in order to explain it to a student on a lower level, the teacher divides the concept into parts and stages and explains each one separately. The lower the student, the more everything needs to be explained and laid forth expressly, leaving no room for confusion. This requires much division of the concept into many ideas and many words. However, a greater student could grasp the same concept—in its entirety—in only a few words with only a few steps. Until, someone on the teacher’s level will understand everything with the mention of a single word, such as the name of the concept. For this college knows the definition of this word, which includes the entire explanation of the concept.
So too, as time descends through the hishtalshellus the same original point (of the first thought) is divided into smaller and smaller pieces. For example, in malchus of Atzilus it is divided into seven millenniums. Each millennium is one division and is called one “day,” for this stage can receive and entire millennium at once. From there it divides into each Jubilee cycle of fifty years, then to each Shmitah cycle of seven years, then to each Rosh Hashanah, then to each new moon (the Jewish month starts on the new moon), then to each Shabbos (Saturday), then to each day, then to each combination of the Divine name over each hour. Each of these units includes all of the time within them, and then is subdivided.
Similarly, G-d showed Adam all of the generations that would come out from him, with all of history. Likewise, there is a story with the Baal Shem Tov, where he sent a letter to his brother-in-law in Israel, asking him to inform a certain Rabbi that he did such and such as sin and that it was decreed on high that he would die for it unless he returned, and the Baal Shem Tov prescribed a course of repentance. The Baal Shem Tov’s brother-in-law wrote back with a question: the letter was received a few days after the sin was preformed, which meant that it was sent much earlier. So how did the Baal Shem Tov know and how could the Heavenly Court prosecute before the event? The Baal Shem Tov answered that he ascended to the world of Yitzirah and that there one can see ten or fifteen years at once. Thus, at that stage it already happened.
Imagine ten points arranged in a line like this: [……….] Since they are all laid out in front of you, you can see them all at once. Now imagine if these points had to pass in a line past a narrow crack in a wall, like this: [……….] (you are the “x”).
___ ___
x
This way you would only be able to see one at a time, thus it would take ten units of time to view it (or really twenty, if the spaces in between are counted). Thus, the passage of time is limited according to our ability to receive it, but there is no essential limitation.
The same is true with space. For example, when limiting space to one dimension (a line), only one point can correspond to any given point on the line. (Like this: _._.____._______ ) Once a point of the line is taken up, no other point can fit there. On the other hand, if another dimension is added, removing some of the limitations, infinite points can fit along any point of the line. In two dimensions infinite points can be stacked over a single point of a line, like this: [ _:_:____:_____ ]. If someone lived in one-dimensional space, it would be unfathomable to fit more than one thing on one point of a line. Similarly, a two-dimensional person could not fathom three-dimensional space. Thus, our view and definition of space is limited only in our own perception and only by our own limitations, but there is no essential limitation. This is how the Holy Ark took up no space in the Holy Temple’s Holy of Holies. For even though it had definite dimensions—two and a half, by one and a half cubits—the room retained its full ten cubit’s of space—five on each side of the Ark. How can more than one object can occupy the same space?
Simple, just go even one dimension higher, and there is no difficulty at all—just like there is no difficulty to fit many things on a single point if they may be stacked. Thus the Ark was a tangible revelation of something beyond our limits of space, as viewed within our limits. These limits are created by the tzimtzum and the kav, but G-d transcends all of them, higher and higher.
Thus the dimensions and limits of time and space as we know it descend from the number and order of the sfiros that G-d reveals within creation and the manner of the vessels, etc. Were G-d to allow more of a revelation into a given level, these limitations would cease.
The Bridge of Time
Time is really an intermediary between the physical dimensions of space and a higher, spiritual reality. Time allows the physical world to contain something beyond it, without bursting the world’s limitations and nature. For example, two-dimensional space can be revealed in the world of one-dimensional space in two ways: The one-dimensional people can see a point that really is hovering over their line of space. This point will appear to take up space, but when measured it won’t, similar to the Ark, because it does not rest within the bounds of their line, but is above it. This is a revelation of beyond nature within nature, but this sort of brakes the rules, creating a paradox within one-dimensional space. The other way to reveal a two-dimensional figure in one-dimensional space is to run it through the line. Thus the plane would be viewed line by line in sequence—in other words, it would be revealed in time. This is the way a movie reel works. The entire film is present at once on the movie reel. The entire movie could be laid out on the ground and viewed at once. However, the movie is not viewed this way.
Rather it is passed over a narrow opening and viewed only one frame at a time. This creates the need for a long time to view the movie, and creates the illusion of motion, as the frames change. (The movie real is like a line, one-dimensional space, being viewed point by point, or in zero-dimensional space.) Thus, it is understood how time allows something of a greater dimension to exist within a lower dimension, because it exists there bit by bit over time. In this manner, even a three-dimensional figure could be viewed even in zero-dimensional space, point by point, line by line, plane by plane. It would just take a lot of time. (This is kind of like the layered imaging used in many medical scans, like a cat scan, where a three-dimensional image is produced by two-dimensional scans, taken over time, and then stacked on top of each other.)
So too, G-d’s intent in creation is to reveal that which is higher than our three-dimension within our limits. Time bridges this gap. This is how life or soul connects to the physical. When a higher level enters a lower level through the intermediary of time, the lower level becomes animated, moving and changing. Just like pictures become “animated” when the one-dimensional film enters the zero-dimension by way of the projector’s shutter. This is why life and movement are synonymous. Everything in our world has a soul that enters it, changing it over time. Time bridges the physical and the spiritual. (These are the three levels of "Olam, Shanah, Nefesh"--World, Time, Soul. Time is the intermediary between World and Soul.)
(Also, note that the ultimate intent is to reveal G-d Himself in our world, and the idea of time and the revelation of something higher than our limits in our limits that it represents are only a beginning to get us used to the idea. This is only a relative novelty and relative higher revelation, ultimately we will experience G-d Himself Who transcends ALL limitation.)
Infinite Time
Now we come to the age-old questions about time, such as can it be infinite, is it continuous or made of units, what about Zeno’s Paradox, and so on. In order to answer these questions some things have to be clarified about number theory (some things that I think are still confused by most mathematicians and scientists): the relationship of the finite to the infinite.
This can be understood in terms of the relationship between points and a line. In the world of points, each point is a single, finite unit. Points can be counted (one point, two points, three points,), added and subtracted. A line is defined by geometry as a series of points. However, this is not entirely true. For a point has zero dimensions. That means that it has no length at all. Relative to a line a point is not a one, but rather a zero; it is none existent in the world of lines. In the world of lines each line is a single, finite unit. Lines can be counted, added and subtracted, just as points can. These are two distinct dimensions. Points have no existence in the world of lines, because they are nothing in that realm. Likewise, lines have no existence in the world of points, there is no such thing as length in the realm of points, and so there is no possibility for a line’s existence, or even the understanding of a line.
So can points be strung together to make a line? Not really, because no matter how many points are added, it is still zero relative to a line. And infinite series of zeros does not make one. Points simply lack the possibility of entering the world of two-dimensions. Even the infinite totality of the world of points does not reach even the smallest line segment. Rather there is a jump, a sort of qualitative leap, between the world of points and the world of lines. Where mathematics made of only zeros, nothing could happen. Placing the number one before a series of zeros is a leap, a new creation, a new number, something that did not exist before. However, one a line exists, every piece of it includes or encompasses infinite points. Just like the number one includes infinite subdivisions. Each point between zero and one is itself a zero.
(A few years back there was a debate about whether the number .999… equals the number 1 or not. What they did not realize is that the question is flawed. When using whole numbers, it is like we are in the world of lines. Each whole number represents a line, and this can be divided into factions and decimals. However, infinite series such as .999… represent a point, not a line. This is why there is no representation for .000…1 That is, an infinite series of points with a one at the end. Such a series would represent a point. However, this point is infinitely small, and thus has no existence or relevance to the world of whole numbers. Asking if .999… equal 1 is like asking if infinity minus one equals infinity, or if a line minus one point is a line.
The entire question is wrong, because finite numbers have no relevance to infinite numbers and points have no relevance to lines. A point is a zero—as it is infinitely small—and adding or subtracting it from a line does nothing. When in the realm of points, there is relevancy to points and they can be added or subtracted. However, in the realm of lines, points have no relevancy. So too, in general finite numbers are like zeros to infinite numbers.)
Infinity is infinitely bigger than one million. By the law of symmetry this means that one million is infinitely small relative to infinity. This makes one million dimensionless, like a point to a line. Thus, all finite numbers are like zero and irrelevant to infinite numbers. Finite numbers can only become infinite, such as having an infinite series of numbers or points, when an infinite number (such as a line) descends into the realm of finite numbers (such as points), the finite can become infinite. For example, when a line descends into the realm of points and is viewed and defined by the limits of points, it creates and infinite series of points. On the other hand, from the point of view of finite numbers, infinity can never be reached. That is, were a person to have the power of adding ones, or even millions, and did so unceasingly, he would never even approach infinity, but remain relatively zero. Points can never gain length by their own right, but when length, even the smallest length, is defined in terms of points, it creates infinite points.
This is because the first dimension is an infinitely higher realm than the zero-dimension. Even something finite in the realm of lines, such as a line segment, is completely infinite in the realm of points. So too, any plane or two-dimensional figure is infinite in the realm of lines, and any three-dimensional figure is infinite in the realm of planes. Thus any physical object that we encounter, no matter how small, includes infinite planes, lines, and points, just because it is in the third dimension.
This is how relative infinities are possible. Two lines is twice as great as one line, and a plane is infinitely greater than a line, yet in the realm of points two lines, or even a plane, does not have more points than a single line. Once something is in a higher dimension it encompasses an infinity of the lower dimension. Any addition to this is a function of finite numbers and only has meaning in that higher realm, such as adding lines. Two lines are twice as great in the realm of lines, but nothing can be added to the realm of points by this. One includes just as many zeros as two does. (As is represented by the infinite series of zeros after a whole number. Changing the number before the zeros does not effect the series of zeros in any way. Thus the series of zeros in 1.000000… is the same as the zeros in 2.000000… This is because whole numbers (including finite decimals, because the decimal can be moved) and infinite sets or never ending decimals are two different realms or dimensions and their numbers have no relation to each other. (Of course, all of this is only mathematical infinities and not true infinity. True infinity can have nothing greater. These relative infinities are comparable to the worlds within hishtalshellus each higher world is infinite relative to the worlds below it. However, the infinity of the Ein Sof before the tzimtzum is a true infinity and nothing can be higher.)
So too, time can be viewed on three levels or dimensions: as finite time, as infinite time, or as infinite time within finite time. If time is viewed as finite, it is a series of points, definite parts and not a continuum. When time and space are viewed this way, time and motion work in increments like the frames of a movie. Space may also be viewed this way (and to be consistent it must be), as existing in definite parts. If we choose to view time and space this way, Zeno’s Paradox falls away, because the amount of space to be covered is finite, the amount of time is finite, and each space has a corresponding point in time—like a movie. On the other hand, if time and space are viewed as infinite, they are a continuum and not a series points. Just like points are irrelevant in the world of points, so too, there are no definite points if time and space are a continuum.
Rather, each movement and change is a single fluid unit. This way, too, Zeno’s Paradox falls to the side, because the space to be covered is not an infinite series of finite points, rather it is a single fluid unit—a higher and relatively infinite realm—and there is a corresponding fluid unit of time. In this scheme time and space are like line segments—they are finite in the realm of lines, but infinite to the realm of points and points have no relevance the their world. Indeed, Zeno’s Paradox is based on a flawed premise, or a confusion of terms (just like the question about whether .999… equals 1). In essence Zeno’s question is how can finite parts (points) ever reach infinity (a line, or continuum). And the truth is that they can’t, but they don’t have to, because when jumping to a higher realm, finite numbers or points become irrelevant.
There is also a third way (which is the true nature of reality), when the infinite descends within the finite. This is like how a line encompasses infinite points and creates an infinite series of points when expressed in terms of points. In this view space is indeed made of infinite points (as Zeno said), but so is time. Thus for every infinitely small point of space, there is an infinitely small point of time. This is indeed a paradox, for the mind cannot comprehend this. Here the points take on the quality of a line, which should be impossible, because the points are zeros, they lack any length, so how can length be made of them?
The answer is that although points cannot make length of their own accord, and finite numbers can never reach infinity, yet when infinity descends into the finite the finite is able to become infinite too. Although this is illogical, nay impossible, when viewed by the standards of the finite, there can still be recognition that this is so and that this is possible for a higher power, not bound by the same limits. In this way time can be both points and a continuum and space can be both particles and a wave. Such phenomena are the result of a higher realm interfacing and merging with a lower one. (This is similar to the idea of time in general—how it bridges a higher realm with a lower—and how it is possible for there to be higher than time and space within time and space, as explained previously.)
This is one of the ways that the Infinite Creator is revealed in our world. The fact that matter is infinitely divisible and that time is infinitely divisible and that the world is set in such a way that it can continue forever and that matter cannot be destroyed, all reveal something of G-d’s infinity within our finite world. Especially, this ability to merge the finite with the infinite points to G-d, for only G-d, who is beyond the limits of both finite and infinite, can merge the two.
And so, very soon, we will experience infinite time, with the coming of Moshiach. Then will be the “day that is all long,” that is completely infinite time. And “all” long means that its beginning is long like its end. This means that not only will we experience G-d for eternity in an infinite future, we will retroactively experience Him in an infinite past, extending even before the world was created. For the world is made with an Author, a Book and a Story. And just like a story starts in middle of a scene with a complete world, so too, our world started in mid-scene. But in the time of Moshiach G-d will reveal everything to us, including His intent of the past history of the world (and even though it never existed, it is more real than the world as we know it, for it a thought of G-d which is one with Him and He is the ultimate reality). And just as G-d is infinite, so too will the revelation of Him in our finite world be infinite, breaking all bounds in all directions and all dimensions.
(Based on Imrei Binah, chapters 39 and 40; Derech Mitzvosecha, Emanus Elokus, chapters 11 and 12; Derech Emunah (Sefer Hachakirah); a letter of the Rebbe, Hosofos of Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 (second letter); and other sources.)
-
"While I'm not expert in this issue, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has mentioned in a few places that when one starts to say that the 7 days of creation were unlike our days of creation it creates a real halachic problem, because the way we celebrate Shabbos must be modeled after what G-d did. Don't ask me more about it because I don't know, but there is a theological problem there."
I just want to make a comment on #1, Lubab.
First, I want to say that I love you like a brother and I love the heart you use whenever you post to all of us.
I don't believe that there is that much of a theological problem with the concept that Gd created the universe in 7 billion years (give or take a few quadrillion) instead of 7 days. Gd might have decided to stop creating things once He created human beings and therefore rested and allowed human beings to pretty much do the rest of creation until the Moshiach....and as we can say this 7th day isn't taking 24 hours...it's taking 5700+ years so far.
Love you too bro' :-* :D
I told you not to ask me about that. Now you're gonna make me have to find that letter of the Rebbe about it.
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
There are 6 days of creation, not 7 . (no?)
-
two thoughts:
first I am not a scientist and am a beginning Torah student but here are two questions:
Doesn't G-d create by 'speaking'? Therefore, aren't there 2 phases of creation...God speaks, and then from his words, the things are formed? Could that mean that maybe he took 6 days to speak/conceptualize the world, but then it took thousands/millions/billions/ of years for the work to be done (while he sits back after he spoke)?
Moreover, maybe the word creation could better be the word 'design' or 'conceptualize'...or maybe we need to find better words for creation or break it down into a few different parts. I could see G-d 'designing' the world in six days...or creating a 'blueprint', but then it taking millions of years to complete.
I also thought the point on time being different from the center of the universe/creation and where we are is interesting. Maybe it is like when you swing a bat...at the center, there is only a little distance (which could be related to short the creation time), while the end of the bat moves several feet (which could be the thousands/millions/billions of years) that we perceive.
Anyways, I could just be blabbering here I have little idea of what I'm talking about...maybe he did conceptualize, design, and then create/form the world in 6 days which are similar to the days from our perspective.
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
There are 6 days of creation, not 7 . (no?)
Well, yes, but on the 7th day G-d created the concept of rest.
-
also, I have heard that the light we see from some of the stars is 6 million years old or something...like just the light traveliing through space from stars at such a distance would take 6 million years to reach earth.
-
also, I have heard that the light we see from some of the stars is 6 million years old or something...like just the light traveliing through space from stars at such a distance would take 6 million years to reach earth.
Exactly. One of the proof that the earth is billions of years old is that many of the stars we see are millions of light years away so it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us.
-
also, I have heard that the light we see from some of the stars is 6 million years old or something...like just the light traveliing through space from stars at such a distance would take 6 million years to reach earth.
Exactly. One of the proof that the earth is billions of years old is that many of the stars we see are millions of light years away so it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us.
That is proof in the same way that looking at Adam's hairy chest on his birthday would tell us he's 30 not 1 day old.
Or you could just as easily say G-d created Adam with the features of a grown man and G-d created the stars in a way that the light was already shown all the way to us so we can see and benefit from them.
None of these things are proof of the age of the world unless you assume that G-d couldn't have created anything that appears older than it really is. If you do accept that G-d did that, then there is no issue here at all.
JDL4ever, do you beleive that G-d made trees that were already grown when He created the world? If a scientist would do radioactive dating on those trees, what would they conclude?
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
Actually my intention wasn't to bring this up...but it is a very interesting metaphor if one millenia = one Gdly day...for all we know it might be each millionth year = 1 Gdly day.
I think the point I wanted to bring up about creation according to simple biblical interpretation as 7 days with Gd perfectly doing the "zap" technique of creating all living species was that I doubt that Gd would show His wisdom and majesty that way. I believe that Gd is far more clever than to just make things spontaneously appear. Sure He can do such things..He can do anythign He wants. However, in my opinion, it seems more a miracle that Gd created all living species via how scientists are trying to explain it today (even though they dont' quite have the full answer). Lubab, all living species are made out of cells which are each little miracles within themselves..all working in harmony...each cell has little organelles and each organelle as moelcules of whcih each are atoms...and the beauty of all these things is that somethign causes it to work in harmony...that, my friend, is Gd's breath.
I dont' believe that Gd just put a bunch of cells together to make each unique species...but started from the ground with these atoms he created...and so on and so forth...gradually created what we have today.
-
Question Lubab, If they have found no evidence whatsoever that there was human life during the time of the dinosaurs that would logically dictate that humans came after no? How? Bang, later Adam and Eve or as the Darwinian mind......"evolved" from Monkeys? Of course, that logic's thesis stems that all life came from some floating snot in a heated chemically intoxicated ocean. That be the case, what gave the snot life? G-d? or chance? To throw one last wrench into the equation, it is well known that we've found fossilized skeletons of crocodiles dating to the age of the dinosaurs and when compared with today's crocodiles there is no difference whatsoever. Thus the crocodiles have not "evolved" in the least but monkeys changed....ooops "evolved" into humans? I think to logic and factual reality seems to suggest the Torah's explantion of human life is more accurate than Darwin's.
Now if one wishes to add the specifities of DNA and Geological records, the nail is slammed deeper into the coffin of Darwinism....... Keep up the posts Lubab......doing well brother... :)
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
Actually my intention wasn't to bring this up...but it is a very interesting metaphor if one millenia = one Gdly day...for all we know it might be each millionth year = 1 Gdly day.
I think the point I wanted to bring up about creation according to simple biblical interpretation as 7 days with Gd perfectly doing the "zap" technique of creating all living species was that I doubt that Gd would show His wisdom and majesty that way. I believe that Gd is far more clever than to just make things spontaneously appear. Sure He can do such things..He can do anythign He wants. However, in my opinion, it seems more a miracle that Gd created all living species via how scientists are trying to explain it today (even though they dont' quite have the full answer). Lubab, all living species are made out of cells which are each little miracles within themselves..all working in harmony...each cell has little organelles and each organelle as moelcules of whcih each are atoms...and the beauty of all these things is that somethign causes it to work in harmony...that, my friend, is Gd's breath.
I dont' believe that Gd just put a bunch of cells together to make each unique species...but started from the ground with these atoms he created...and so on and so forth...gradually created what we have today.
You are correct in you're feeling that G-d did this in a gradual process. He did. The Ramban tells us that G-d started out with the "hiyuli" matter i.e. the unformed and undefined matter of creation and then each day he made particular creations out of that. There was definitely an evolutionary process there, however, it took place over the course of 6 days, just like our 6 days.
And that is only the physical process of creation. G-d went through an entire multi-staged evolution known in Hebrew as "Seder histhalshelut" in order to create spiritual level after spritual level until the physical matter could be created. The study of these stages is a fundamental part of hasidic philosophy and I'm sure you would find it very fascinating.
So it wasn't a complete "zap" as you say.
And it is indeed our job to appreciate all of G-d's creations and trace them back to their source, which is G-d Himself.
-
Question Lubab, If they have found no evidence whatsoever that there was human life during the time of the dinosaurs that would logically dictate that humans came after no?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Did they ever check in the Ma'rat Hamachpeila? That's where the oldest humans would be.
-
Lubab, you are making wild crazy assumptions against clear scientific evidence. The fact that we could see stars millions of light years away proves that the earth is not 6k years old. Your answer "G-d created the world to look like it was millions of years old" makes no sense and has not one shred of evidence. If you want to believe that fine, but I'm going to go with what evidence points to and what is obvious. Why would G-d make the world appear millions of years old if it was not so, he likes to play tricks on us or something?
-
the concept of light from distant planets being visible immediately is not as hard for me to accept as the idea that the earth was created with dinosaur fossils still in it.
I could maybe agree that Adam was created as a '30year old'...I could also maybe see trees being created immediately...but the whole fossils in the ground argument seems just a little too absurd.
I do agree that carbon dating must be seriously flawed though and I doubt the accuracy of any carbon dating reports. I'm guessing one or 2 big meteors hitting the earth could mess up all carbon dating by creating different climate.
-
I have an other question .
If god created the world in 6 days, and than in the 7th day he rest, god isn't perfect because perefect thing will never be tired .
-
Interesting question Dexter. You are smart!!!!
-
Listen Lubab, I think i brought up a good point there...We are on our 7th day and Gd intended for us to finish it by bringing about the moshiach..
I think you are confusing two things. There are the 7 days of creation. There are also 7 days in each week.
The history of the world is also like a week. It is to last for 7 millenia. The 7th millenia is like complete Shabbos and that is the time of the resurrection of the dead.
We are currently in the year 5767 of the world. That means we towards the end of the 6th millenium.
If the millenniums correspond to the week then we are right now in Erev Shabbos and we can bring in Shabbos at any time.
We're actually already like in the 18 minutes left before Shabbos...and people are getting nervous...
One must bring in Shabbos an hour early, so we know Moshiach must come well before the year 6000.
Maybe this is what you have in mind, but one should not confuse the general "week" of the history of the world, with the particular days of creation which were 7 real days. I think that's where you're running into the problem.
Actually my intention wasn't to bring this up...but it is a very interesting metaphor if one millenia = one Gdly day...for all we know it might be each millionth year = 1 Gdly day.
I think the point I wanted to bring up about creation according to simple biblical interpretation as 7 days with Gd perfectly doing the "zap" technique of creating all living species was that I doubt that Gd would show His wisdom and majesty that way. I believe that Gd is far more clever than to just make things spontaneously appear. Sure He can do such things..He can do anythign He wants. However, in my opinion, it seems more a miracle that Gd created all living species via how scientists are trying to explain it today (even though they dont' quite have the full answer). Lubab, all living species are made out of cells which are each little miracles within themselves..all working in harmony...each cell has little organelles and each organelle as moelcules of whcih each are atoms...and the beauty of all these things is that somethign causes it to work in harmony...that, my friend, is Gd's breath.
I dont' believe that Gd just put a bunch of cells together to make each unique species...but started from the ground with these atoms he created...and so on and so forth...gradually created what we have today.
You are correct in you're feeling that G-d did this in a gradual process. He did. The Ramban tells us that G-d started out with the "hiyuli" matter i.e. the unformed and undefined matter of creation and then each day he made particular creations out of that. There was definitely an evolutionary process there, however, it took place over the course of 6 days, just like our 6 days.
And that is only the physical process of creation. G-d went through an entire multi-staged evolution known in Hebrew as "Seder histhalshelut" in order to create spiritual level after spritual level until the physical matter could be created. The study of these stages is a fundamental part of hasidic philosophy and I'm sure you would find it very fascinating.
So it wasn't a complete "zap" as you say.
And it is indeed our job to appreciate all of G-d's creations and trace them back to their source, which is G-d Himself.
Ok, I can accept someone else's opinion that the evolution of the human being took 6 days literally. Personally, it doesn't seem logical...However, we both agree that Gd was thoughtful and clever on how he made all species of animals and plants, and that is really what matters most...not if it took literally a week to create the universe or 7 decillion years.
Now, I have a couple other questions about the story of creation:
1. Trees and plants were created on the third day. On the fourth day the sun, moon and heavenly bodies were created. How is that possible if plants require sunlight to grow?
2. On the second day of creation, it is written that the sky was separated from the waters. Gd never said it was good. However, on the third day of creation, Gd said what he created was good twice. How come?
-
I have an other question .
If G-d created the world in 6 days, and than in the 7th day he rest, G-d isn't perfect because perefect thing will never be tired .
On the sixth day Gd created human beings. Look how complex human beings are...they go this way they go that way...they are part animalistic and part Gd's holy image...I think even Gd looks at these amazing creatures and gets baffled and needs time to think how these little tiny human beings will usher in Moshiach..therefore on the seventh day, he not only rests like we rest on shabbat, but also learns about how we are and how we will be.
-
I have an other question .
If G-d created the world in 6 days, and than in the 7th day he rest, G-d isn't perfect because perefect thing will never be tired .
Maybe he didn't rest because He was tired, but because he WANTED to rest.
If G-d wants to rest, He'll rest and there's nobody else up there to tell Him otherwise.
-
But if someone want to rest it's because he have the need to rest, you won't rest just because you are board .
If you have needs you are not perfect because perfect thing have no needs otherwise he is not perefect .
-
But if someone want to rest it's because he have the need to rest, you won't rest just because you are board .
If you have needs you are not perfect because perfect thing have no needs otherwise he is not perefect .
Don't tell G-d what to do.
If G-d wants to have a need or a desire, He will. If you say He can't than you are believing in a god that's even more limited than you and I.
-
Your same question could be asked and has been asked about why G-d created the world at all.
Does he have a need for this? A desire?
Does that make Him imperfect?
The answer is as I told you above.
The problem is people limit G-d to their own definitions of perfection and this is a big problem. If G-d is no greater than what your mind can convieve as perfection, then He's no greater than you.
He's the one who invented perfection, He defines it, not us. So if G-d wants to rest, you try and tell Him he can't because He's "perfect".
I wouldn't have the guts.
-
But if someone want to rest it's because he have the need to rest, you won't rest just because you are board .
If you have needs you are not perfect because perfect thing have no needs otherwise he is not perefect .
Don't tell G-d what to do.
If G-d wants to have a need or a desire, He will. If you say He can't than you are believing in a G-d that's even more limited than you and I.
There is a BIG (HUGE) diffrent between what you need, as rest, and what you want to do as creat a world .
If G-d rest it's not because he wanted to, it's because he have to, because if someone need to rest it's mean he was tired, and because of that G-d isn't perfect .
Unless you have an answer .
He's the one who invented perfection, He defines it, not us. So if G-d wants to rest, you try and tell Him he can't because He's "perfect".
I wouldn't have the guts.
No, it's men kind that invented perfection to try and define God, and God don't stand in the standarts of perfection.
-
The section of the Torah about Genesis speaks only in analogies in our way of speaking so that we can comprehend a tiny fraction of what happened. Some people understand more than others and if you study science you will understand more than others. G-d has no need to rest and he isn't really resting for that matter since everything is only in existence if G-d himself is currently willing for it to happen by allowing the laws of nature he created to continue to exist. G-d's rest is in a figurative sense in that after man was created on the sixth day, which was the entire purpose of creation, G-d's work was finished and creation is no longer happening after that. G-d is resting in a figurative sense since he is waiting and watching for man to do what is just and right in G-d's eyes and to follow in his ways.
The Sabbath is a day of rest not only commemorating this event but also commemorating the purpose of G-d's rest. We set aside that day to separate ourselves from the outside world and concentrate on following in G-d's ways (praying, learning Torah, eating big meals to honor him) and in doing so hopefully we can make the purpose of G-d's rest worthwhile by following in his ways and making G-d himself rejoice on his Sabbath which is still happening according to me.
-
The section of the Torah about Genesis speaks only in analogies in our way of speaking so that we can comprehend a tiny fraction of what happened. Some people understand more than others and if you study science you will understand more than others. G-d has no need to rest and he isn't really resting for that matter since everything is only in existence if G-d himself is currently willing for it to happen by allowing the laws of nature he created to continue to happen. G-d's rest is in a figurative sense in that after man was created on the sixth day, which was the entire purpose of creation, G-d's work was finished and creation is no longer happening after that. G-d is resting in a figurative sense since he is waiting and watching for man to do what is just and right in G-d's eyes and to follow in his ways.
Yes. This is also a good point. Thank you.
-
Dexter, answering your question made me think and opened up a new door to understanding the Sabbath. It's one of those rare moments when things are coming together ... thank you.
-
But if someone want to rest it's because he have the need to rest, you won't rest just because you are board .
If you have needs you are not perfect because perfect thing have no needs otherwise he is not perefect .
Don't tell G-d what to do.
If G-d wants to have a need or a desire, He will. If you say He can't than you are believing in a G-d that's even more limited than you and I.
There is a BIG (HUGE) diffrent between what you need, as rest, and what you want to do as creat a world .
If G-d rest it's not because he wanted to, it's because he have to, because if someone need to rest it's mean he was tired, and because of that G-d isn't perfect .
Unless you have an answer .
He's the one who invented perfection, He defines it, not us. So if G-d wants to rest, you try and tell Him he can't because He's "perfect".
I wouldn't have the guts.
No, it's men kind that invented perfection to try and define G-d, and G-d don't stand in the standarts of perfection.
Right. I think, on the last point. G-d's not limited to our definition of perfection.
I hope you see now that there really is no difference between G-d's desire to create a world and G-d's desire to create the Sabbath.
Neither had to be created. G-d could've done fine without either one. But He chose those things out of complete unlimited free choice.
This is unlike our choices which are limited by our necessities and human frailties.
Since G-d doesn't have those limitations, His choice is a truly free choice. He made the rules up from scratch.
-
The section of the Torah about Genesis speaks only in analogies in our way of speaking so that we can comprehend a tiny fraction of what happened. Some people understand more than others and if you study science you will understand more than others. G-d has no need to rest and he isn't really resting for that matter since everything is only in existence if G-d himself is currently willing for it to happen by allowing the laws of nature he created to continue to exist. G-d's rest is in a figurative sense in that after man was created on the sixth day, which was the entire purpose of creation, G-d's work was finished and creation is no longer happening after that. G-d is resting in a figurative sense since he is waiting and watching for man to do what is just and right in G-d's eyes and to follow in his ways.
Well, but why wouldn't we understand how the torah speaks about genesis, even if it's "only in analogies in our way of speaking so that we can comprehend a tiny fraction of what happened" ?
How do you know that G-d have no need to rest if it saying that :
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2:2 By the seventh day G-d had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
--
It's very clear that he rested, not for man, but for himself, and the man should rest too in Sabbath as G-d did in the 7 day of the week .
Right. I think, on the last point. G-d's not limited to our definition of perfection.
I hope you see now that there really is no difference between G-d's desire to create a world and G-d's desire to create the Sabbath.
Neither had to be created. G-d could've done fine without either one. But He chose those things out of complete unlimited free choice.
This is unlike our choices which are limited by our necessities and human frailties.
Since G-d doesn't have those limitations, His choice is a truly free choice. He made the rules up from scratch.
If G-d is not limited to our definition of perfection, than we can't even call him in a name, or write on him, because G-d have NO definition, also saying he have no limits is a definition it self .
-
I don't understand your difficulty. G-d resting is an analogy just like it says by the splitting of the sea that G-d used his right hand which is also an analogy since G-d doesn't have a right hand, also G-d creating us in him image is an analogy since he has no image. G-d's name is also an analogy. All these things are mere analogies to help us comprehend G-d by speaking in our terms. G-d is limitless and his oneness is not able to be completely understood or defined by us so we use analogies which is better than using nothing. Yes, G-d is in fact "resting" on the seventh day but the term "rest" is not the same as it applies to humans, the proper term does not exist in the Hebrew language and "rest" is the best analogy to what G-d is doing.
-
Why does G-d have his own terms ?
And how do you know G-d even have his own terms ?
Why would G-d creat terms for Human and terms for himself, how can we even understand what terms the Torah uses ? what you have said make the Torah Very complicated, now how can we know if G-d actually created the universe from nothing (chaos) ? what is chaos ? is it G-d's term or human one ? what created the chaos and why G-d make the chaos to somthing else by the creation ?
-
1. Trees and plants were created on the third day. On the fourth day the sun, moon and heavenly bodies were created. How is that possible if plants require sunlight to grow?
The plants did not really grow until the 6th day when it rained for the first time and man existed to work the field. 2:5 Genesis. And See Rashi there. They were just like sprouts under the ground until that time.
2. On the second day of creation, it is written that the sky was separated from the waters. Gd never said it was good. However, on the third day of creation, Gd said what he created was good twice. How come?
Because the purpose of the creation of the 2nd day wasn't fulfilled until the 3rd day. There could be no use for the waters until there was land which could benefit from the water. See Genesis Rashi 1:7
Make sure when you are learning, you are doing it with Rashi's commentary. Just about all your questions will be answered there.
-
Quote:"on the seventh day he rested from all his work."
That means he ceased.
Shabbat means 'to cease', does it not?
-
Tank you...where can i find Rashi's commentaries?
1. Trees and plants were created on the third day. On the fourth day the sun, moon and heavenly bodies were created. How is that possible if plants require sunlight to grow?
The plants did not really grow until the 6th day when it rained for the first time and man existed to work the field. 2:5 Genesis. And See Rashi there. They were just like sprouts under the ground until that time.
2. On the second day of creation, it is written that the sky was separated from the waters. Gd never said it was good. However, on the third day of creation, Gd said what he created was good twice. How come?
Because the purpose of the creation of the 2nd day wasn't fulfilled until the 3rd day. There could be no use for the waters until there was land which could benefit from the water. See Genesis Rashi 1:7
Make sure when you are learning, you are doing it with Rashi's commentary. Just about all your questions will be answered there.
-
If G-d is not limited to our definition of perfection, than we can't even call him in a name, or write on him, because G-d have NO definition, also saying he have no limits is a definition it self .
You are right. The sages stress that there is no definition we can give to G-d to properly describe Him.
That's why we can only use the praises of the prophets, because G-d gave them special permission to use these praises even though at the end of the day, they don't cut the mustard as far as describing G-d. You are right. Nothing could.
If we would come up with our own praises we would never be able to stop. G-d just gave permission for certain praises and said "these are good enough for Me".
All these praises, the "Perfect One", the "Kind One", The "Infinite One" are not proper definitions of G-d at all. We say them to remember that though they do not define Him, he is not lacking these qualities.
For instance, if I say "Dexter is a nice guy", that doesn't define you. Dexter is a person with all kinds of emotions and qualities and kindness is only one of them. You are not limited to only doing nice things.
However, my statement is still true because you are not lacking kindness. It is one of your attributes, but I keep in mind that there is much more to you than that.
-
Tank you...where can i find Rashi's commentaries?
I like this one:
http://www.judaism.com/seriesdisplay.asp?USN=110
-
Quote:"on the seventh day he rested from all his work."
That means he ceased.
Shabbat means 'to cease', does it not?
Yes it does mean "cease". As we say in Kiddush-G-d "ceased" (Shovas) from all His work.
On the 6 days of creation G-d created things as a means to an end.
On Shabbos He created the notion that things are an end unto themselves.
-
If G-d is not limited to our definition of perfection, than we can't even call him in a name, or write on him, because G-d have NO definition, also saying he have no limits is a definition it self .
You are right. The sages stress that there is no definition we can give to G-d to properly describe Him.
That's why we can only use the praises of the prophets, because G-d gave them special permission to use these praises even though at the end of the day, they don't cut the mustard as far as describing G-d. You are right. Nothing could.
If we would come up with our own praises we would never be able to stop. G-d just gave permission for certain praises and said "these are good enough for Me".
All these praises, the "Perfect One", the "Kind One", The "Infinite One" are not proper definitions of G-d at all. We say them to remember that though they do not define Him, he is not lacking these qualities.
For instance, if I say "Dexter is a nice guy", that doesn't define you. Dexter is a person with all kinds of emotions and qualities and kindness is only one of them. You are not limited to only doing nice things.
However, my statement is still true because you are not lacking kindness. It is one of your attributes, but I keep in mind that there is much more to you than that.
So we just need to try and not think about God, and just pray for him ?
And other question, why does god need us to pray ?
-
Tank you...where can i find Rashi's commentaries?
I like this one:
http://www.judaism.com/seriesdisplay.asp?USN=110
Bereisheet...ok...i think i have the exodus one...tough to understand unless it's two people reading it together.
-
Dexter, we are supposed to think about G-d and try to understand him. That is the purpose of the Torah since it is a blueprint G-d gave us to follow in his ways. Each one of the commandments in the Torah reflect an aspect of G-d and by understanding just one commandment and observing it you reach an understanding of that aspect of G-d. By loving G-d and following in his ways by observing the Torah, we are able to understand G-d to some extent. However, while we are supposed to try to understand G-d to the best of our ability, we must realize that we will only be able to reach a small fraction of understanding the whole truth about G-d since he is uncomprehensable and our minds can not comprehend his oneness. According to tradition, even Moses did not understand certain things about G-d.
-
If G-d is not limited to our definition of perfection, than we can't even call him
So we just need to try and not think about G-d, and just pray for him ?
And other question, why does G-d need us to pray ?
The main point of prayer is not because G-d needs it, but because we need Him.
We need His assistance in everything we do, and we also need to recognize where all the blessings we have came from. He is giving us all these gifts and if we don't apprecate it, we are being ungrateful.
Our prayers are set up to help us appreciate our blessings and to recognize G-d's involvement in the world.
-
Some things are unknowable and incomprehensible to the human mind. Try as we might, we can never fully grasp them.
The concept of Creation, or something coming from nothing is incomprehensible, until one accepts that something didn't come from nothing. Something, everything comes from G-d.
Being human we are unable to fully grasp the concept of a time when there was no time, or an entity that is eternal and transcends time.
The opening letter of Genesis is the Hebrew 'bet' or 'b' which is shaped like a backwards English 'c'. As Hebrew is read from right to left, and the Hebrew 'b' is closed on all sides except going forward to the left, this gives us a clue that what there was before Genesis can not be fully understood or known by man.
The very word Adonai has the connotation 'I don't know'.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't think about G-d.
This just means we should accept we can never fully understand G-d.
Scientists will tell us the Universe is expanding. The Universe is stretching, getter larger.
But what is the Universe expanding into ?
If one could travel to the end of the Universe, what would be on the other side ?
Where did everything in the Universe come from ?
These questions are almost imponderable and the answers to them are incomprehensible.
That's because the answer is G-d.
-
On that note, i sometimes tell myself that the universe is a type of sphere like the earth is a sphere. Except when talkign about the earth, you can go upwards in to space... If the universe were a type of sphere in all directions..how can one leave it or go outside of it..what is outside of it? Gd and Heaven.