[Revan]

There are several errors in your assumption Slurpee:

One, the method of radio-active decay is assuming that the decay was also at the same rate (or at least there was a constant rate of change of rate of decay - getting into differential calculus). There is nothing to say that the decay was a constant rate or even an a constant exponential rate.

Furthermore, there is no reason to say G-d couldn't have created rocks which appear to have been decaying for thousands of years. The same applies to your rock formations. Assuming the world started of with a "big bang" and followed a natural course from there, then it may perhaps take thousands of year, but again, who says G-d couldn't have created the world in a complete state - so complete that it seemed much older than it was.

"No human has ever lived that long".

No human with the same anatomy as modern man has ever been recorded to have lived that long. And indeed it would be quite miraculous if any person these days could live that long - for the reasons you mentioned.

However, you're not reading what I wrote: People have changed - "evolved" over time. Noah was a human, but perhaps not the same as us today. Perhaps the bones in those times were far stronger, as were the cells. It's possible that the natural immune system could deal with the flu without the assistance of antibiotics. You can't know. All you can say is that it would be impossible for any person alive today to live that long. You cannot definitively say there never existed a creature, or human, who could not live that long.

Regarding the absence of harmful substances, I didn't say they didn't exist. I brought it as a possible example of a change of factors. There are so many factors which affect lifespan, we can't know all the changes in those factors over thousands of years. Indeed they've found Egyptian mummies with traces of various substances in their hair and what not.



In response to "sky":
"עלום חסד יבנה" is indeed in the future tense. However it's not read: עולם חסד, pause, יבנה, it's עולם, pause, חסד יבנה. The full verse from Psalms 89 reads: כִּי-אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם, חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה - it's a statement said by G-d, said before the creation of the world - "The world will be created through kindness." Referring to the above-mentioned kindness of allowing Adam and Eve's children to procreate by marrying theit own sisters.

Furthermore, if עולם חסד meant a "world of kindness" you should have של in there. Yes, you can have סמיכות, but it doesn't work in this case. And, as I said, there's a pause (indicated by the "trop" - cantillation marks (which by the way, are the source of all punctuation in the Torah/Bible).

Direct quote from the Talmud in Yevamot:
חסד עשיתי עם הראשונים שייבנה העולם מהן. (תהילים פט) אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה

[lozinabox]

please translate the hebrew babble.

[sky]

"The world will be created through kindness."

but wouldn't that be-
העולם יבנה דרך חסד.
or
חסד יבנה את העולם.

[slurpee]

Furthermore, there is no reason to say G-d couldn't have created rocks which appear to have been decaying for thousands of years. The same applies to your rock formations. Assuming the world started of with a "big bang" and followed a natural course from there, then it may perhaps take thousands of year, but again, who says G-d couldn't have created the world in a complete state - so complete that it seemed much older than it was.

which would be why i said not without gods divine intervention

"No human has ever lived that long".

No human with the same anatomy as modern man has ever been recorded to have lived that long. And indeed it would be quite miraculous if any person these days could live that long - for the reasons you mentioned.

However, you're not reading what I wrote: People have changed - "evolved" over time. Noah was a human, but perhaps not the same as us today. Perhaps the bones in those times were far stronger, as were the cells. It's possible that the natural immune system could deal with the flu without the assistance of antibiotics. You can't know. All you can say is that it would be impossible for any person alive today to live that long. You cannot definitively say there never existed a creature, or human, who could not live that long.

things only evolve due to a selective presure...sounds to me thats the perfect person, i dunno why we would evolve backwards in such a way that we cant fight deisase or life very long, although it is possable through gene drift and bottle neck effect starting a founder effet... but evolving so much in such a short time...unimaginativly improbable, it takes millions of years,.. so it is extremly "unlikly" as i said "without gods devine intervention", also isnt it supposed to be according to intellegent design that humuns didnt evolve? that evolution doesnt exist or somthing...not to sure on that point.

[Revan]

but wouldn't that be-
העולם יבנה דרך חסד.
or
חסד יבנה את העולם.

Just making sure you're aware, but יבנה in this instance is the passive (Yi-bo-neh, not Yiv-neh, it's in the passive). It's from Psalms and it's slightly poetical and therefore the sentences aren't necessarily constructed in accordance with all the rules of normal grammer.

Although in normal Hebrew you'd probably write it something like: העולם ייבנה על ידי חסד .Yet even breaking some of the normal rules of grammar it doesn't make sense to translate it any other way.





In response to Slurpee:


I'm merely speculating how nothing in science definitively negates Genesis, although my knowledge of science could said to be incomplete. Nor am I particularly knowledgable about evolution (or devolution). Yet, science changes it's mind often enough, comes up with new things, discovers news material, evidence etc. As I did mention, there could numerous other factors which science is unaware of, some which may have caused devolution.

And of course science cannot factor in divine intervention.

(Interesting to note, is that according to modern science the Earth doesn't necessarliy revolve around the sun. According to the theory of relativity, it's impossible to prove whether the sun revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, or if both revolve around a third point. As such, either Copernicus or our modern scientists could be right - and our textbooks are definitely outdated.)


In regards to evolution (or devolution), according to traditional Rabbinic sources, it's accepted that man has changed over the centuries. Although it is accepted that he didn't evolve from apes, or even the same predecessor as apes (in accordance with Darwin's revised theory). However it is mentioned somewhere that certain men where punished and became monkeys or something, so perhaps it's more accurate to say that monkeys evolved from men.

This post has been edited by revan501: Jun 9 2007, 09:36 AM

[slurpee]

In response to Slurpee:
I'm merely speculating how nothing in science definitively negates Genesis, although my knowledge of science could said to be incomplete. Nor am I particularly knowledgable about evolution (or devolution). Yet, science changes it's mind often enough, comes up with new things, discovers news material, evidence etc. As I did mention, there could numerous other factors which science is unaware of, some which may have caused devolution.

but the fact that science is changing due to greater understanding as new things are discoverd or disproved is no more prove that god exists then saying god exists cause my tedder bear is a lighter shade of blue then my computer desk top.

(Interesting to note, is that according to modern science the Earth doesn't necessarliy revolve around the sun. According to the theory of relativity, it's impossible to prove whether the sun revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, or if both revolve around a third point. As such, either Copernicus or our modern scientists could be right - and our textbooks are definitely outdated.)

well actaully its now excepted that both statments are correct, hence the expression relative, everything is relative to somthing else, and the reason why such a relationship isnt factored into text books other then year 12 physics ones and beyound is because it doesnt apply to everyday life, and saying the earth revolves around the sun is good enough cause it works, if you wanted to take relativiy into acount everywhere well for one thing road laws such as saying some one is speeding wouldnt work anymore....gah, relativity exam in 2 days...

This post has been edited by slurpee: Jun 9 2007, 11:41 AM

[Fridgemagnet]

things only evolve due to a selective presure...sounds to me thats the perfect person, i dunno why we would evolve backwards in such a way that we cant fight deisase or life very long, although it is possable through gene drift and bottle neck effect starting a founder effet... but evolving so much in such a short time...unimaginativly improbable, it takes millions of years,.. so it is extremly "unlikly" as i said "without gods devine intervention", also isnt it supposed to be according to intellegent design that humuns didnt evolve? that evolution doesnt exist or somthing...not to sure on that point.

Actually, given that as technology has advanced further people have found it easier to survive, it would in fact be quite likely that after a certain point we began devolving, simply because natural selection was no longer so important. Also, people with better physical structure would probably have been more likely to have been involved in wars than anyone who was weaker.

On the whole, I agree moreso your side of the argument, but this particular point was one that I disagree with.

[slurpee]

hmmmmm, well whats going on in 1st world countries is that technollogy manages to save lifes that would, in the harsher world be...for lack of a less horrable expresion, removed from the gene pool, its not that we are devoloving because there is no removel of the so called positive attrobutes in humans, simply an increasing amount of what might be regarded less adapt genes, as the benifits of this technology have only become signigigant over the last 100 years it is quite impossable such a "devolotion" could have occured from super humans to us in the last 4000 years, and the outcome of our age of technology has yet to be seen, especailly seeing as the population of man only started growing exponentialy recentaly aswell...

also if they were super human thus more likly to be in wars, wouldnt they also be more likly to win the wars? and if not, only the ultimant would survive thus enhancing the gene pool....what happend to the Spartains!!!!!!!!

all im saying is, people going from super human to us as oppose to apes to us...il stick with the apes....this is all, as i said, without gods divine intervention...

This post has been edited by slurpee: Jun 9 2007, 12:57 PM

[Shafan]

i would like to add that using "divine intervension" in an argument is little more than a "trump card" that is played whenever an argument defies observation, logic, and science. Any hole in the argument can simply be waved away by saying things like:
"god OBVIOUSLY changed the rateof change of radioactivity of these minerals"
"these fossils were OBVIOUSLY planted as a test of our faith"

these arguments are simply used as a replacement for real ideas that can be backed up with evidence, whether it be scientific or historical evidence. There is no plausible proof of divine intervension. And yet noahs arc defies an astounding number of natural laws, all due to "divine intervension" or "miracles".

In other words, your proof of divine intervension comes from religeous texts like the bible - and yet your proof of the "truth" in such religeous texts stems from divine intervension. both arguments are mutually supportive, yet because of the fact that divine intervension (by virtue of its very nature) does not involve logic or observation, creationists simply talk about it; like it suppresses all arguments.

this mutually supportive argument, when translated into maths would be something like this:

y=2x

"i can solve this equation. y is equal to 2, therefore x is equal to 1. and i know that y MUST equal to 2, because x is equal to one. " anyone who has passed year 8 maths could tell you the absurdity of that statement.


Now the one proof that people try and give to miracles is "historical evidence". However, the key word there is "historical". in any sort of documented evidence, any sort of sense can only be made by considering the following questions:
"who wrote it?"
"what background did they come from?"
"when was it written?"
"what is the reasoning behind what is written?"
"did they, in their time, really mean what we now think they are saying?"
"did they have an agenda?"
"what are their beliefs that would colour the way they see things?"
and many more.

the amount of flaws in relgion that these questions expose is immense. i will talk more about this later when it is not so late. suffice to say, just because something was written in a book, does not mean its true; whether it be because of bias (subliminal or conscious) mistakes, or deliberate lies. and when it comes to the genesis, there are no "historical" documents that are no of a judeo-christian oriented. can anyone say bias??

[lozinabox]

umm... genisis is also used in the Islamic faith so its not just Judeo-Christian

the only big difference really between the islamic version is the names ie. Abraham is Ibrahim.... etc etc.

This post has been edited by lozinabox: Jun 30 2007, 01:47 AM

[kiki]

ill just say what cigarette companies used to say.... millions of people couldn't be wrong.

[Fridgemagnet]

Cigarettes cause large amounts of death by cancer and other nasty things. Yet millions of people support and smoke them. Millions of people supported Hitler, as well as many other of the great tyrants of history. Millions of people, in fact, seem to be wrong more often than not.

[CH!MP]

I think we can all safely say that religion is all ridiculous...except for Scientology of course. Great religion there. Nothing dodgy going on at all. Dammit If it's good enough for Tom Cruise its good enough for me. L. Ron Hubbard is my Jesus

[Fedora.Pirate]

Woah guys, that's kinda unfair. Just because a large number of people have made mistakes in the past does not mean when ever a large number of people make a decision it's wrong.

[kiki]

im not saying decisions are wrong, im saying using other peoples decisions to make ur own or to strengthen an argument is weak.

[Fedora.Pirate]

Yeah, I agree with that; but Fridgemagnet took it to the next level.