Is Marc Shapiro essentially acknowledging the yeshivish perpective that this is a philosophical/theological question as to how to interpret ועקבותיך לא נודעו?
Perhaps this will come up in your next post, but I would just like to point out that the whole idea that the Torah tells us the age of the universe is nonsensical. First of all, the תליית המאורות is obviously a process that took longer than that, as you pointed out. Second, ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר obviously had a different connotation in the first 3-4 days of creation, and there is very little to suggest that it changed later.
Time is by definition a measurement of movement; therefore, it cannot be properly defined unless one identifies what movement one is measuring. (For the Torah definition of time see Rambam in the beginning of Kidush Hachodesh.) Since the nature of movement was obviously different during ששת ימי בראשית, and we don't know exactly how to define it, it is nonsensical to base any scientific claims from it.
The only Torah-science questions are those from after ששת ימי בראשית (i.e. the Mabul, as other than that we have no indication when the ששת ימי בראשית ended), or those from the sequence of events.
1. What disturbance in the ice layer would you expect to see if there was a worldwide flood?
2. You have to keep in mind that many of those who are attacking the science are only attacking parts of the science, and only in combination with other methods of dealing with the science. And since much of what is considered science is speculative, it makes sense to raise this point. The fact that you can point to parts of science that you believe are conclusively proven doesn't detract from this point, since the attacks on the Torah come from many angles, including parts of science that are less than conclusively proven- like evolution.
2) I agree that there are parts less conclusively proven. Additionally, many of those who attack evolution combine this attack with the world was created looking old theory - a point I intend to make in Part 4. The bigger issue is that the books as a rule generally ignore the fine details of the evidence, and create a strawman argument.
As an aside, what I think is going on here is that many hardcore New Atheists look to evolution as an alternative to God, and thus the proof against God. Thus many books show that evolution was "debunked" therefore leaving the God hypothesis as a requirement.. Later kiruv books misunderstood this dynamic and instead of debunking evolution as part of proving hashem, they used it to explain why there is no issue with the age of the universe, which of course it doesn't help. (R Lopiansky's shiurim avoid this issue by and large, but R Sapirman falls in hook line and sinker.)
1. What uniformity? Do you see any uniformity in the picture you attached? The point of ice cores is not uniformity, which there is not, because the freeze-thaw cycle is different every year, but a pattern showing hundreds and thousands of such cycles, ostensibly indicating hundreds of thousands of years. I have no reason to think that the Mabul would have caused a major and identifiable disturbance in the pattern.
So nothing to do with uniformity, you have a kasha on that opinion of Chazal that the water was boiling, why didn't it melt all the ice away. Ok. You could have also asked from the fish who weren't invited onto the teivah, how did they survive the scalding water (Ramban actually discusses this).
"Science denier"= meaningless ad hominem. For a lot of you people, science is a fundamentalist religion, has nothing to do with evidence, and if somebody wants to discuss the merit of the evidence, he's a "science denier".
It is a catch all to the various positions you have professed , including evolution, the young universe, the flood etc. it contravenes science. As I said, I don't care what you believe. Flat earthers believe that anti science too. But trying to convince the gullible is unforgivable.
It's a meaningless ad hominem when discussing flat earthers and anti-vaxxers as well. They are not anti-science (and are typically more scientifically informed than the general public), they are just wrong. Mistakenly disagreeing with the scientific consensus on one issue does not make somebody anti-science.
No disrespect, but nobody suggests humans descended from apes, other than non-scientific rejectionists.. What evolution has proven is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
I'm pretty sure that there is a mehalech that says that we do not know the changes to the laws of physics during certain periods such as the flood (and we know physics did get suspended based on gemorahs which describe anti-physics planetary motion), and therefore we cannot reliablly study anything before these events occured due, as we cannot know what effects these changes had.
I'm pretty sure that there is a mehalech that says that we do not know the changes to the laws of physics during certain periods such as the flood (and we know physics did get suspended based on gemorahs which describe anti-physics planetary motion), and therefore we cannot reliablly study anything before these events occured due, as we cannot know what effects these changes had.
Rereading it, it seems I created an amalgation of R Meiselman and R Moshe Shapira. I'll try to point this correction out in a later post. Thanks!
(BTW, I don't see how a suspension of nature wouldn't have any observable effects. Shouldn't an extinction event leave some remnants? If all life as we know it all disappeared but one pair per species? We should be able to detect it in the DNA at least, never mind the fact of continuous cultures throughout the mabul era, such as the Chinese and the Native Americans.
As I wrote previously, I believe the idea is that in all the suspensions of nature rule of thumb is ועקבותיו לא נודעו. The world must revert to appear as if there never was a suspension of nature, so the suspension of nature will remain localized.
I still think it is a stretch to extend this to explain everything, especially civilization in Mesopotamia predating the founders according to the Torah (though I guess one can argue that the Torah doesn't mean that there was nothing there prior to those founders).
There are places in the Torah that imply some people survived the mabul, such as the Kenim or Nephilim. Additionally, it seems weird that the Torah would point out of all Knaan's descendants civilization innovations if none of them survived the mabul. Hence, the Bible critics like to say there are two flood stories, one universal with no survivors and one with survivors. The question is if we as frum yidden who reject this concept (and I'll have a post detailing the many issues with it sometime in the future, or I can email my shiur on it) can use their so-called evidence to suggest either a local flood or a different explanation.
I happen to think the meforshim's explanation are perfectly fine. My main point was that once we know scientifically, there is evidence against a worldwide flood, we can possibly use their "evidence" to create a pshat consistent with Torah and science.
I'm not sure how this answers the DNA objection. If all animals descend from one or seven pairs, that should be readily observable in the DNA. And this is after the mabul.
Excellent work! Looking forward to the rest!
Is Marc Shapiro essentially acknowledging the yeshivish perpective that this is a philosophical/theological question as to how to interpret ועקבותיך לא נודעו?
Perhaps this will come up in your next post, but I would just like to point out that the whole idea that the Torah tells us the age of the universe is nonsensical. First of all, the תליית המאורות is obviously a process that took longer than that, as you pointed out. Second, ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר obviously had a different connotation in the first 3-4 days of creation, and there is very little to suggest that it changed later.
Time is by definition a measurement of movement; therefore, it cannot be properly defined unless one identifies what movement one is measuring. (For the Torah definition of time see Rambam in the beginning of Kidush Hachodesh.) Since the nature of movement was obviously different during ששת ימי בראשית, and we don't know exactly how to define it, it is nonsensical to base any scientific claims from it.
The only Torah-science questions are those from after ששת ימי בראשית (i.e. the Mabul, as other than that we have no indication when the ששת ימי בראשית ended), or those from the sequence of events.
1. What disturbance in the ice layer would you expect to see if there was a worldwide flood?
2. You have to keep in mind that many of those who are attacking the science are only attacking parts of the science, and only in combination with other methods of dealing with the science. And since much of what is considered science is speculative, it makes sense to raise this point. The fact that you can point to parts of science that you believe are conclusively proven doesn't detract from this point, since the attacks on the Torah come from many angles, including parts of science that are less than conclusively proven- like evolution.
1) I certainly would not expect uniformity.
2) I agree that there are parts less conclusively proven. Additionally, many of those who attack evolution combine this attack with the world was created looking old theory - a point I intend to make in Part 4. The bigger issue is that the books as a rule generally ignore the fine details of the evidence, and create a strawman argument.
As an aside, what I think is going on here is that many hardcore New Atheists look to evolution as an alternative to God, and thus the proof against God. Thus many books show that evolution was "debunked" therefore leaving the God hypothesis as a requirement.. Later kiruv books misunderstood this dynamic and instead of debunking evolution as part of proving hashem, they used it to explain why there is no issue with the age of the universe, which of course it doesn't help. (R Lopiansky's shiurim avoid this issue by and large, but R Sapirman falls in hook line and sinker.)
>>R Lopiansky's shiurim avoid this issue by and large
I was wondering about that. It wasn't so clear in your essay.
1. What uniformity? Do you see any uniformity in the picture you attached? The point of ice cores is not uniformity, which there is not, because the freeze-thaw cycle is different every year, but a pattern showing hundreds and thousands of such cycles, ostensibly indicating hundreds of thousands of years. I have no reason to think that the Mabul would have caused a major and identifiable disturbance in the pattern.
2. Good explanation.
Are you still a YEC? Just curious. I got back to this thread...
" I have no reason to think that the Mabul would have caused a major and identifiable disturbance in the pattern."
Would thousands of gallons of boiling hot water not affected the ice in some observable way?
So nothing to do with uniformity, you have a kasha on that opinion of Chazal that the water was boiling, why didn't it melt all the ice away. Ok. You could have also asked from the fish who weren't invited onto the teivah, how did they survive the scalding water (Ramban actually discusses this).
Really? Evolution is less than conclusively proven? How much less?
How much less cannot be quantified, but enough that I find it less than convincing. I wrote about it here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/what-we-have-against-evolution
Which makes a science denier. Which is fine with me if that's your wont. What does bother me is that you try to convince gullible people about it.
"Science denier"= meaningless ad hominem. For a lot of you people, science is a fundamentalist religion, has nothing to do with evidence, and if somebody wants to discuss the merit of the evidence, he's a "science denier".
Happy, it's not a meaningless hominem at all.
It is a catch all to the various positions you have professed , including evolution, the young universe, the flood etc. it contravenes science. As I said, I don't care what you believe. Flat earthers believe that anti science too. But trying to convince the gullible is unforgivable.
It's a meaningless ad hominem when discussing flat earthers and anti-vaxxers as well. They are not anti-science (and are typically more scientifically informed than the general public), they are just wrong. Mistakenly disagreeing with the scientific consensus on one issue does not make somebody anti-science.
Is man evolving from apes conclusive?
No disrespect, but nobody suggests humans descended from apes, other than non-scientific rejectionists.. What evolution has proven is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Tell the Smithsonian
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution#:~:text=Scientific%20evidence%20shows%20that%20the,of%20approximately%20six%20million%20years.
I have. But to what specific reason were you referring?
I feel like my theory that nature changed after Matan Torah neatly ties it all together.
Basically, work forward from Matan Torah. Has anything been disproven? No.
And there's evidence the world changed in nature from beforehand.
What do mean by nothing ha been disproven since Matan Torah?
Is this a serious statement?
Yes. Do you have a counter example?
I didn't understand your statement..
What has not been disproven since MT?
God? True.
Creation? True
Creation story(ies) Not true.
Thank you for sharing your assertion.
You're welcome. Want more?
I'm pretty sure that there is a mehalech that says that we do not know the changes to the laws of physics during certain periods such as the flood (and we know physics did get suspended based on gemorahs which describe anti-physics planetary motion), and therefore we cannot reliablly study anything before these events occured due, as we cannot know what effects these changes had.
I'm pretty sure that there is a mehalech that says that we do not know the changes to the laws of physics during certain periods such as the flood (and we know physics did get suspended based on gemorahs which describe anti-physics planetary motion), and therefore we cannot reliablly study anything before these events occured due, as we cannot know what effects these changes had.
Rereading it, it seems I created an amalgation of R Meiselman and R Moshe Shapira. I'll try to point this correction out in a later post. Thanks!
(BTW, I don't see how a suspension of nature wouldn't have any observable effects. Shouldn't an extinction event leave some remnants? If all life as we know it all disappeared but one pair per species? We should be able to detect it in the DNA at least, never mind the fact of continuous cultures throughout the mabul era, such as the Chinese and the Native Americans.
As I wrote previously, I believe the idea is that in all the suspensions of nature rule of thumb is ועקבותיו לא נודעו. The world must revert to appear as if there never was a suspension of nature, so the suspension of nature will remain localized.
I still think it is a stretch to extend this to explain everything, especially civilization in Mesopotamia predating the founders according to the Torah (though I guess one can argue that the Torah doesn't mean that there was nothing there prior to those founders).
There are places in the Torah that imply some people survived the mabul, such as the Kenim or Nephilim. Additionally, it seems weird that the Torah would point out of all Knaan's descendants civilization innovations if none of them survived the mabul. Hence, the Bible critics like to say there are two flood stories, one universal with no survivors and one with survivors. The question is if we as frum yidden who reject this concept (and I'll have a post detailing the many issues with it sometime in the future, or I can email my shiur on it) can use their so-called evidence to suggest either a local flood or a different explanation.
The explanations of the classic Mefarshei HaTorah are so bad? Because the Bible critics don't like them?
I happen to think the meforshim's explanation are perfectly fine. My main point was that once we know scientifically, there is evidence against a worldwide flood, we can possibly use their "evidence" to create a pshat consistent with Torah and science.
I'm not sure how this answers the DNA objection. If all animals descend from one or seven pairs, that should be readily observable in the DNA. And this is after the mabul.
This is in Torah Chazal and Science?