Author Topic: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline  (Read 17666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline christians4jews

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« on: October 12, 2010, 03:02:58 PM »
Evolution                                                                           Genesis
Sun before earth                                                                   Earth before sun
Dry land before sea                                                               Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea                                                           Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth                                                          Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth                                                                    Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets                                                    Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants                                                Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish                                                         Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees                                                          Trees before land animals
Death before man                                                                     Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man                                                   Man before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer)       Man before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birds                                                                    Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales                                                       Whales before land animals
Land mammals before bats                                                            Bats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birds                                                                    Birds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plants                                                    Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants                                                                      Plants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphins                                                             olphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaurs                                                           Pterosaurs before land reptiles



this was from a creation site i would rather not link, but shows how you cannot believe in the bible and evolution, its impossible.


Now i hav no problem as there is zero evidence for origins of species, ziltch, nothing. BUT THIS IS for the bible beleivers that also believe in the religion of evolution.


Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10669
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2010, 03:49:46 PM »
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

Offline christians4jews

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2010, 04:16:33 PM »
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

so what is the symbolic teaching the bible getting things in the wrong order(if you believe in the religion of evolution) :rolleyes:

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18265
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2010, 04:23:09 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

Offline christians4jews

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2010, 04:27:38 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit god. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.

No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.

cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.

So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.

Offline Meerkat

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
  • Yemach Shmam to Egypt and Iran
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2010, 04:35:15 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
 :P  :P ;D ;D ;D

Offline christians4jews

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2010, 04:39:51 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............

im sorry linking me wikipedia articles on bones in the ground is not going to sway me that we are decendants of apes, and fish turned into reptiles and chickens truned into dinosaurs...

Please dont insult my inteligence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
 :P  :P ;D ;D ;D


Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2010, 04:41:16 PM »
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

It's amazing to me how often I agree with exactly what you say, zelhar.  Great points.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2010, 04:44:15 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.
...................
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link, no observable evidence, no retestable evidence, nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.
............

im sorry linking me wikipedia articles on bones in the ground is not going to sway me that we are decendants of apes, and fish turned into reptiles and chickens truned into dinosaurs...

Please dont insult my inteligence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
 :P  :P ;D ;D ;D


Dude, get real.  You keep calling fossils and remains "bones in the ground."  Can we please use common sense and put two and two together here.   When there are bones in the ground, how do you think they got there?   Isn't it logical to think those bones were once the skeleton of a living organism before it died and decomposed and then covered over by the natural process that happen in the earth?    Wait, I'll answer for you.  Yes, that is logical.   To say there are just a bunch of bones in the ground for no apparent reason and that those bones never belonged to living organisms  is NOT logical and is actually akin to a conspiracy theory - only the conspiracy is by G-d to place bones in the ground for no reason and to deceive all the scientists.   

Get real or else there's nothing to talk about with you.   You asked for evidence of transitional species.   Someone linked to evidence that's been dug up showing remains of transitional species.   You then say that that's not evidence because it's just a pile of bones.    That is insane.   You are not refuting the premises of evolution, you are refuting a straw-man that you created.   'Wanna' know how I know?   Because you are implying that "transitional" species have to be crawling around on the earth RIGHT NOW, alive, for there to ever have been transitional species.   But evolution does not assert this, even if there were transitionals walking around.   So you refute a straw-man instead of engage the actual arguments of scientists.    The problem with your logic is that NO ONE KNOWS SOMETHING IS TRANSITIONAL UNTIL AFTER THE FACT WHEN IT CHANGES INTO SOMETHING ELSE!    And after-the-fact, it has left a fossil for us to examine and analyze.   Oh, but you don't "believe in" fossils.  What you are exhibiting here is plain nuttiness.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2010, 04:51:15 PM »
This is yet another case of someone being opposed to evolution (or what he considers evolution even if his knowledge or understanding of it is nowhere near accurate) based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand.  The scientists are convinced of COMMON ORIGIN for many reasons.    A suitable argument against them is not "oh they just don't realize bones are just bones" or any other religious craziness.   You can try to refute them scientifically - in that, you will fail.   

So if you oppose on religious grounds, Just Say So.  Do not pretend your views are science or that the scientists are not adhering to science (or that evolution is a 'religion') when they collectively agree on common origin.   (Even some prominent Intelligent Design proponents - the honest ones - agree on the premise of common origin - they simply argue on the mechanisms by which the species evolved).

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2010, 04:51:58 PM »
c4j,

One minor complaint with your timeline...

According to Jewish tradition the 'light' which Hashem created on the first day was not the sun, nor a star, it was primordial divine light which was put away in a container shortly after it was created. This primordial light is not physical light so to say that there was light on earth before the sun is not correct from the Jewish perspective {as I understand it}...

http://www.ravkooktorah.org/BREISHIT_67.htm

Quote
"Ohr Ha-Ganuz"

The very first act of creation recorded in Genesis is the creation of light. "And G-d said, 'There shall be light'"  (Gen. 1:3). But what kind of light was this?

It cannot be the light that we are familiar with, the light emanating from the sun and the stars — the heavenly bodies were created much later, on the fourth day. The Sages called this primordial light "Ohr Ha-Ganuz", the Hidden Light. What is the nature of this special illumination introduced at the beginning of creation?

The Sages taught (Shemot Rabbah 15:22) that certain topics mentioned only cryptically in the Torah were later elucidated by David in the book of Psalms. For example, the Torah relates that G-d created light after creating heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1-3). In Psalms, however, the order is reversed. There the verse indicates that G-d first created the light and only afterward the heavens:

"He wrapped Himself in light like a garment, and spread out the heavens like a curtain." (104:3)

This concept, however, is difficult. The verse in Psalms does not explain the Torah's account, but rather contradicts it, switching the order of creation as set down in Genesis. Furthermore, what does it mean that G-d 'wrapped Himself in light like a garment'?

Chomer and Tzurah

The philosophers distinguished between chomer, the raw material, and tzurah, the inner form or purpose. For example, wood is a raw material (chomer) that may be used in many different functional objects. Once it is designated for use as a table, the wood also has tzurah, having acquired a particular purpose.

At the very beginning of Creation, there was only chomer. G-d created many varied elements, but they were without tzurah, lacking function and purpose. This state of disorder and dissonance is referred to as darkness — "darkness on the face of the depths" (Gen 1:2). The Torah calls this unstable primeval stage Tohu and Bohu, meaning that it was chaotic and empty of form.

Then G-d created the "Ohr Ha-Ganuz". This special light played a critical role in creation. Just as regular light allows us to see and relate to our surroundings, the Hidden Light enabled the different elements of creation to relate to one another. It dispelled the initial state of darkness when all objects were isolated, unable to relate and connect to each other.

To use the terminology of the philosophers, the illumination of the first day stamped a functional tzurah on the material chomer of creation. Through this special light, the universe's myriad objects gained purpose and function, and were able to work together towards a common goal.

To Wear Light

The Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 3:4) writes that "G-d wrapped Himself in (the light) like a garment, and illuminated the splendor of His glory from one end of the world to the other." What does it mean for G-d to 'wear light'? This phrase indicates that the light took on G-d's qualities of oneness and unity, just as a garment takes on the shape of the one wearing it. When 'G-d wrapped Himself in light,' He introduced an underlying unity into all aspects of creation, "from one end of the world to the other."

In summary, the description in Psalms does not contradict the account in Genesis. At first, G-d created heaven and earth in an isolated state, as chomer without form and purpose. This was the unstable state of Tohu and Bohu described in Genesis, when the diverse elements of creation existed in chaotic darkness, lacking an underlying unity.

Then G-d said, "There shall be light." G-d bound the matter together with a common purpose through the creation of the special "Ohr Ha-Ganuz". With this unifying light, the universe was stabilized and completed. G-d first 'wrapped Himself in the light,' giving the light His trait of oneness. Only afterwards did He 'spread out the heavens,' as the formation of a stable universe took place after creating the Hidden Light. The psalm continues to describe the stability of the world after the creation of light: "He founded the earth on its foundations, so that it will never falter" (104:5).

(adapted from Midbar Shur pp. 95-96)

Rashi makes this comment on this line:
Quote

And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated: Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future. According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows: He saw it that it was good, and it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness should serve in confusion; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18265
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2010, 05:05:04 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit G-d. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.

I came to accept evolution gradually after weighing the evidence. I had a lot of resistance to the idea. However, now I realize that there is so much more beauty in an old earth/universe and a branching tree of life than in a simple as-is creation.

Imagine the breathtakingly beautiful landscapes that existed for eons, before humans spoiled them. Supercontinents coming together, separating, coming together again, separating, canyons forming, mountains pushing up, seas barren, then bursting with life. Land barren, then filled with life. Glaciers forming, retreating, forming, retreating. Landscapes shifting from grassland, to forest, back again. Oceans turning into deserts, etc. Different eons were almost like different worlds, filled with different types of life, different environments.

It really shows God's hand as a wonderful artist, if you want to be poetic about it. Imagine seeing something that's rather like a fish but beginning to look a bit like a tetrapod, swimming around in an ancient wetland, climbing up on something in the water with its lobe fins, to gaze at the world above, a world which its descendants will dominate, and fill many, many roles. This creature's descendants branching out, to become antelope and lion, dog and cat, lizard and crow, and beings which will write books, establish religions, and fly into space, all from this one, rudimentary tetrapod. Of course, this fish would have no idea of this grand future. It would be more interested in finding food and a mate. Yet, its Creator knew this, by looking and watching it all unfold, just as planned.

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -Charles Darwin

Quote
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link,

Acanthostega is one of my favorites:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

Quote
no observable evidence,

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Quote
no retestable evidence,

Evolution makes certain basic predictions, and no credible evidence has been foudn that contradicts those.

Quote
nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.

Let's head you off at the pass, just pick one and find the answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote
cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.

You could always home school your kids. I think that's probably best anyway for conservative parents.


Quote
So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.

Atheism is a lack of religion and a lack of faith. Very few atheists have a positive belief "there is no God", most of them simply have a lack of belief in God (and yes there is a difference).

Offline christians4jews

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2010, 05:17:22 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

its a religion and a branch off of atheism to discredit G-d. Weak jews and christians who are fearful of the bible ALWAYS being correct are submissive towards it. BUt at the end of the day it faith.

I came to accept evolution gradually after weighing the evidence. I had a lot of resistance to the idea. However, now I realize that there is so much more beauty in an old earth/universe and a branching tree of life than in a simple as-is creation.

Imagine the breathtakingly beautiful landscapes that existed for eons, before humans spoiled them. Supercontinents coming together, separating, coming together again, separating, canyons forming, mountains pushing up, seas barren, then bursting with life. Land barren, then filled with life. Glaciers forming, retreating, forming, retreating. Landscapes shifting from grassland, to forest, back again. Oceans turning into deserts, etc. Different eons were almost like different worlds, filled with different types of life, different environments.

It really shows G-d's hand as a wonderful artist, if you want to be poetic about it. Imagine seeing something that's rather like a fish but beginning to look a bit like a tetrapod, swimming around in an ancient wetland, climbing up on something in the water with its lobe fins, to gaze at the world above, a world which its descendants will dominate, and fill many, many roles. This creature's descendants branching out, to become antelope and lion, dog and cat, lizard and crow, and beings which will write books, establish religions, and fly into space, all from this one, rudimentary tetrapod. Of course, this fish would have no idea of this grand future. It would be more interested in finding food and a mate. Yet, its Creator knew this, by looking and watching it all unfold, just as planned.

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -Charles Darwin

Quote
No one on here or in the world can show me one transition fossill/missing link,

Acanthostega is one of my favorites:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

Quote
no observable evidence,

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Quote
no retestable evidence,

Evolution makes certain basic predictions, and no credible evidence has been foudn that contradicts those.

Quote
nothing, ziltch, zero. Not one of you here can.

Let's head you off at the pass, just pick one and find the answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote
cue "oo but in science we try and seek the truth, they may be errors on the way but we get there in the end" baloney. Im fed up with a dumb theory being pushed in schools and my potential kids having to learn that crap. And it is crap.

You could always home school your kids. I think that's probably best anyway for conservative parents.


Quote
So as atheism is a religion and a faith, so is evolution.

Atheism is a lack of religion and a lack of faith. Very few atheists have a positive belief "there is no G-d", most of them simply have a lack of belief in G-d (and yes there is a difference).

im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2010, 05:31:01 PM »

im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.

More obfuscation.

You're still going to insist on denying that bones in the ground once belonged to living organisms?  Sorry, but that precludes intelligent conversation.  Evolution is not a religion.   You may be intelligent, but you're not showing it in this thread.

Offline Meerkat

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
  • Yemach Shmam to Egypt and Iran
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2010, 05:36:37 PM »
.............

im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.



well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2010, 06:23:19 PM »
.............

im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.



well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.

And it is true that radio dating has been shown to be unreliable..

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
Quote

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990


Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.

It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.

Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.

http://www.varchive.org/C.E./c14.htm

Quote
The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating

Offering in 1952 his new radiocarbon method for calculating the age of organic material (the time interval since the plant or the animal died), W. F. Libby clearly saw the limitations of the method and the conditions under which his theoretical figures would be valid:

A. Of the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth—the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the hydrosphere, the richest is the last—the oceans with the seas. The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. :

B. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.

To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating. When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.
.
.
.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm

Quote
Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18265
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2010, 06:25:45 PM »
im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

I repeat:

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If you're not going to read the answers, you might as well not ask questions.

Offline Meerkat

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1426
  • Yemach Shmam to Egypt and Iran
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2010, 06:29:44 PM »
.............

im sorry just showing me dead thing in the ground and bones are not going to sway me.

Please up your game if you want to get me semi repecting the religion of evolution, bare in mind i am pretty intelligent.



well, lets start with he fact that we can know the ratios of stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes in dead bio-matter using recently died bio-matter. than we take the fossils and see how much radioactive isotopes they have. after that, we use the rate of decay of the isotopes we are using to predict when the organism died.

And it is true that radio dating has been shown to be unreliable..

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
Quote

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990


Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.

It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.

Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.

http://www.varchive.org/C.E./c14.htm

Quote
The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating

Offering in 1952 his new radiocarbon method for calculating the age of organic material (the time interval since the plant or the animal died), W. F. Libby clearly saw the limitations of the method and the conditions under which his theoretical figures would be valid:

A. Of the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth—the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the hydrosphere, the richest is the last—the oceans with the seas. The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. :

B. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.

To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating. When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.
.
.
.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm

Quote
Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).

carbon-14 dating's accuracy depends on the fossil, if a fossil is too old for C-14, we move to a different element.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18265
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2010, 06:31:22 PM »
Each dating method has a range of time it works best for.

Offline Ari Ben-Canaan

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2284
  • "The Necromancers Could Not Stand Before Moses."
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2010, 06:56:44 PM »
This does not cover the theory of evolution, but it pretty interesting regarding the actual time element of the timeline in question.  I was considering buying one of this man's books sometime in the future [getting to the root of Bereshit is not high on my 'to do' list, but its on there somewhere.].

http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48951136&section=/ci/sam

Age of the Universe
by Dr. Gerald Schroeder

According to a possible reading of ancient commentators' description of God and nature, the world may be simultaneously young and old.

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science.)

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

This ancient commentary was finalized long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other modern scientific data influencing these concepts.

A universe with a beginning.

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology -- the deep physics of understanding the universe -- was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American -- the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

    After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.

It all starts from Rosh Hashana.

How long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?

The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.

Now where do we make the zero point? On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, upon blowing the shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam -- today is the birthday of the world."

This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.

Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.

Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

Looking deeper into the text.

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-a-vis the Bible, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. At Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that God couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days for an infinitely powerful God? No problem.

So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science to learn the working of nature, so too we need to look for the deeper readings in Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 25:11 alluded to this. “A word well spoken is like apples of Gold in a silver dish.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the Text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading. It's those subtleties I want to see.

Natural history and human history.

There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the Bible’s calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of God in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts -- 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."

Moses says you can see God's fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of life in the universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn't impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward -- the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of God.

I recently met in Jerusalem with Professor Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. We were talking science, and as the conversation went on, I said, "What about spirituality, Leon?" And he said to me, "Schroeder, I'll talk science with you, but as far as spirituality, speak to the people across the street, the theologians." But then he continued, and he said, "But I do find something spooky about the people of Israel coming back to the Land of Israel."

Interesting. The first part of Moses' statement, "Consider the days of old" - about the Six Days of Genesis - that didn't impress Prof. Lederman. But the "Years of the many generations" - human history - that impressed him. Prof. Lederman found nothing spooky about the Eskimos eating fish at the Arctic circle. And he found nothing spooky about Greeks eating Musika in Athens. But he finds something real spooky about Jews eating falafel on Jaffa Street. Because it shouldn't have happened. It doesn't make sense historically that the Jews would come back to the Land of Israel. Yet that's what happened.

And that's one of the functions of the Jewish People in the world. To act as a demonstration. We just want people in the world to understand that there is some monkey business going on with history that makes it not all just random. That there's some direction to the flow of history. And the world has seen it through us. It's not by chance that Israel is on the front page of the New York Times more than anyone else.

What is a "day?"

Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5700-plus years, we must add to that "plus six days."

A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. My 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "One thousand years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.

The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word -- "choshech" -- means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.

Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

The Torah wants us to be amazed by this flow, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

The creation of time.

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.

Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That's a phenomenal insight. Time was created. You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.

Einstein's Law of Relativity.

Looking back in time, a scientist will view the universe as being 15 billion years old. But what is the Bible's view of time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you're viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It's a small difference, but it's measurable and measured.

    The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.

If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time. And a minute or an hour where ever you are is exactly a minute or an hour.

If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different. The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.

Here's an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically - and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn't get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, "Great! Send me to the planet. I'll spend three minutes there. I'll do two years worth of homework. I'll come back home in three minutes, and no more homework for two years."

Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes.

Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly because in one of her minutes, hundreds of thousands of our minutes would pass. Whereas if we looked up, she'd be moving very slowly.

But which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days.

Time travel and the Big Bang.

But how does this help to explain the Bible? Because anyway the Talmud and Rashi and Nahmanides (that is the kabala) all say that Six Days of Genesis were six regular 24-hour periods not longer than our work week!

Let's look a bit deeper. The classical Jewish sources say that before the beginning, we don't really know what there is. We can't tell what predates the universe. The Midrash asks the question: Why does the Bible begin with the letter Beit? Because Beit (which is written like a backwards C) is closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction. Hence we can't know what comes before -- only after. The first letter is a Beit - closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction.

Nachmanides expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" -- all the ages and all the secrets of the world.

Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" -- very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance -- so thin that it has no essence -- turned into matter as we know it.

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts.

Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.

Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy -- light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays -- all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The Biblical clock begins here.

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One" (and not “a first day”) comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective. Einstein proved that time varies from place to place in the universe, and that time varies from perspective to perspective in the universe. The Bible says there is "evening and morning Day One".

Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses and Mount Sinai -- long after Adam -- the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. There was a lot of time with which to compare Day One. Torah would have said "A First Day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the First Day with which to compare it. You could say on the second day, "what happened on the first day." But as Nahmanides pointed out, you could not say on the first day, "what happened on the first day" because "first" implies comparison -- an existing series. And there was no existing series. Day One was all there was.

Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward?

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.

Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light, and every second it's going to pulse. Every second --- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. It shoots the light out, and then billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish, and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light is imprinted (printing information on light is called fiber optics - sending information by light), "I'm sending you a pulse every second." And then a second goes by and the next pulse is sent.

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart.

Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we say, "Wow - a pulse!" And written on it is "I'm sending you a pulse every second." You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive another second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because depending on how much time this pulse of light has traveled through space, will determine the amount of stretching of space between the pulses. That's standard astronomy.

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small -- billions of times smaller -- the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.

What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation) of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.

Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.

The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.

The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
"You must keep the arab under your boot or he will be at your throat" -Unknown

"When we tell the Arab, ‘Come, I want to help you and see to your needs,’ he doesn’t look at us like gentlemen. He sees weakness and then the wolf shows what he can do.” - Maimonides

 “I am all peace, but when I speak, they are for war.” -Psalms 120:7

"The difference between a Jewish liberal and a Jewish conservative is that when a Jewish liberal walks out of the Holocaust Museum, he feels, "This shows why we need to have more tolerance and multiculturalism." The Jewish conservative feels, "We should have killed a lot more Nazis, and sooner."" - Philip Klein

Offline Dr. Dan

  • Forum Administrator
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12583
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2010, 07:37:50 PM »
I don't know about you guys, but I think that if man was created by means of something like evolution, that would be a much more intelligent and clever way for Hashem to make us than, "poof" with a magic wand.

I think KWRBT's post awhile back from what Rabbi Cook wrote was very good.

Either way, Gd exists and He masters the universe.


And one other thing, pointless to have a dialogue proving scientific facts or theories to someone who takes things literally from from Bible.  The stories of creation is not meant to be taken literally in every instance and is a very deep spiritual story.
If someone says something bad about you, say something nice about them. That way, both of you would be lying.

In your heart you know WE are right and in your guts you know THEY are nuts!

"Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind."  - Albert Einstein

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2010, 07:40:20 PM »
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden.  The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d.  There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.

This is most definately true, there is not 2 accounts of creation... The second mention of creation is specific to the creation of man and womankind.

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18265
  • Extreme MAGA Republican
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2010, 08:00:00 PM »
So where exactly are the tenets of the religion of evolution, it's moral teachings, it's places of worship, it's spiritual leaders? It's not religion and not meant to replace religion.

Evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism. 

I would say that many atheists probably accept evolution, but that's sort of by default, considering that they don't have religious objections to it, and it's the prevailing scientific theory right now. Atheism just means without theism, without a belief in God or gods.

Quote
It's moral teachings come from the Bible--it's just the opposite of what the Bible teaches. 

That's a real stretch considering that they don't believe in the Bible. Of course, without God's moral guidance as revealed through the Bible, they are more likely to take positions that are opposite to what the Bible teaches. Many atheists I spoke to seemed like fairly decent people though, but that could be because they were still culturally influenced by the Bible.

Quote
Its places of worship are universities, where they hold regular celebrations of Darwin and atheist conferences involving "scientists" who are supposedly unbiased,

No scientist is completely unbiased, but the scientific method and peer review help a lot in combatting that.

Universities are full of liberals, and atheists, but they are hardly part of a religion. Most of the liberals at universities have made a decision to have as little to do with religion as possible, or if they do follow one, it's usually some wishy washy new age crap.

Quote
and its spiritual leaders are the atheist scientists at the forefront who basically keep unfounded theories going to make sure the atheists' backs are covered from a "logical" perspective such as Richard Dawkins--he is supposedly a scientist but most of his website is dedicated to atheist philosophy.

I respect Dawkins in his scientific work. I've seen some of his lectures on youtube and read some of his writing and much of it is quite good. However he is an extreme left winger and seems to have a real resentment of religion. When he gets off the topic of Biology and starts talking about politics or social philosophy, he sounds kind of crazy. He sees religion as being in fundamental contradiction to science, because it relies on faith instead of observable facts. I happen to disagree with him on that. However he's about the least religious man you could possibly mention.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2010, 08:20:12 PM »
I don't think the bible is a science book nor was it ever supposed to be one. For goodness sake even the bible itself lays out two different accounts of the creation one after another.

PS in the language of the bible it seems that everything that swims if a fish, everything that flies is a "bird", there is no classification to mammals, reptiles, etc.

The Bible does not have two different creation accounts, it has a creation account followed by further details that tie Adam in with the Garden of Eden.  The idea of 2 creation accounts comes from German G-d-haters who analyzed the Bible with the assumption that it is not from G-d and developed a source theory that says the Torah is composed from a bunch of different sources, sort of like evolutionists work from the assumption that there is no G-d and must come up with an explanation for our existence that excludes G-d.  There is no reason for a Jew to accept a German account of how the Torah came to be.

Rav Soloveitchik refers to Adam I and Adam II. 

Anyone can look and see that the "details" differ from the original outline set out in Chapter 1.   It appears that there are multiple accounts, from the same G-d, written in the same document.   What's wrong with that?   The mistake of those Germans was in saying it wasn't written by G-d.   Why conflate their mistake with all of what they spoke about.   They are simply drawing the wrong conclusion from the facts.  (or to be more accurate, they actually started with the incorrect conclusion and then read the facts into it - in addition to whatever theory they wove).   But facts are facts.   

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2010, 08:22:34 PM »
based on theological convictions but then presenting that opposition as a scientific objection when in fact there is no science behind it at all.   They want to give their opposition a veneer of rationality by misleadingly attaching it to science or scientific objections, but in reality they refuse to engage with the scientific evidence and simply wave it off with the hand. 

This is exactly how atheists work.

No, this is how scientists work.  Important distinction.   

My point was, do not present theological convictions as if they are scientific arguments.   I'm not saying a person should not have theological convictions ( what they actually are - that is a subject of debate!  But I'm certainly not negating theological beliefs or assumptions.   I am disproving of the dishonest approach to present these convictions as scientific arguments or premises, which they are not).    I myself clearly have theological convictions.  So why do you dishonestly paint me as an atheist because you don't like what I say?