« first day (628 days earlier)      last day (4116 days later) » 

TRiG
TRiG
1:03 PM
Ah, the Omphalos Hypothesis. Actually, of course, the Universe was created last Tuesday by my cat. Any memories you may have of earlier times are simply a fake history created along with the universe last Tuesday. Just before 4 p.m. GMT, if you're interested. — TRiG 31 secs ago
@msh210 It's not offensive: it's accurate. Genesis, if interpreted as a literal creation account, is wrong. You can account for that, either by not interpreting it as a literal creation account, or by explaining why it's wrong. One or the other. Or you can pretend it's right, but that's just nonsense.
@TRiG And this, of course, is nonsense too. I don't have a cat (he stayed behind with my parents when I moved out).
 
 
2 hours later…
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
3:19 PM
@TRiG ... Or you can take as axiomatic that it's literally true, in the strongest sense of the word "literal," and then believe, accordingly, that observations and/or analysis that contradict it must be incorrect, regardless of how convincing. (This is not my position, but it's certainly one held by many Jews and Jewish authorities, and there's nothing inherently logically untenable about it.)
... This answer assumes a position similar to that one, albeit more nuanced.
 
msh210
msh210
@TRiG In 1700, using the best science available at the time, scientists thought the universe was steady-state, so had an age of, well, infinity. In 1900, using the best science available at the time, scientists thought the universe was (I forget now, but let's say) a billion years old. Now, using the best science available at this time, scientists think the universe is fifteen billion years old. Tomorrow, they may decide it's some other age. Why should I believe them today?
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@msh210 At this point, there's evidence from many completely distinct fields that the Earth and/or the universe are orders of magnitude older than 6K years. If you want to reject a claim of precision on Science's part, that may work, but it's very difficult to reject the position that the Earth/Universe looks very old. (Which, of course, is handily sidestepped by Omphalos, if you can stomach it theologically.)
... It's not just one witness, it's at least two (Shamayim Va-aretz, if you will), with stories that cross-check.
 
msh210
msh210
@IsaacMoses Meaning geology and cosmology? Does geology tell us about the age of the universe? (Granted, it tells us earth itself is orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.)
@IsaacMoses It may be hard to stomach because it's unfalsifiable, but why is hard to stomach theologically?
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@msh210 I took some liberties by specifying "Shamayim Va-aretz," but my understanding is that there are various souces of astronomic evidence that point to the age of the Universe, and stuff like geology, tree rings, ice cores, and other terrestrial sources that point to an old Earth. See The Challenge of Creation, by R' Slifkin, for a summary of some of these sources. (There's a GBooks link in this answer.)
@msh210 "God's seal is Truth."
 
msh210
msh210
3:35 PM
@IsaacMoses Okay.
@IsaacMoses Still, astronomy/cosmology itself has gotten it wrong: in 1900 they thought the universe was (again, I forget the number, but) nowhere near 15 billion years old, and now they differ. In each case, they used the best available science. So I think it is reasonable to say they may change their minds again tomorrow using newer science, and to reject what they say today.
I'm not sure that's true of geology or whatever branch (no pun intended) of science studies tree rings (though I'd guess so if I had to guess).
@IsaacMoses I'm not saying the universe is 5773 years old. (Maybe it is, likely it's not. I like this answer, actually.) I'm merely saying I don't find a field that changes its mind every couple of hundred of years (sometimes more, sometimes less) convincing.
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@msh210 As the subspecialties of Science multiply and sophisticate, the number of findings that would need to be undermined to reconcile a young Earth with available observations rises. I think a scientist would tell you that Science has not merely been changing its mind randomly, but converging on a value (as Science tends to over time)
2
 
msh210
msh210
3:53 PM
@IsaacMoses Yeah, could be. I guess that, if I actually want to evaluate the arguments, I should read the relevant papers. I won't be doing so (any time soon), so I guess I'll remain weakly unconvinced of but generally accepting of science's dating.
 
msh210
msh210
4:09 PM
@IsaacMoses Accepting a universe as old as science says it is violates that, too.
 
TRiG
TRiG
4:21 PM
@IsaacMoses That answer needs to be reformatted to make all those links at the end work.
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@TRiG Done.
@msh210 I agree that it's formally the same problem, but the resolutions available (e.g. "leshon benei adam," "allegory for spiritual reality," etc. vs. Omphalos, "testing us," etc.) are distinct and deserve to be evaluated distinctly.
 
msh210
msh210
4:46 PM
@IsaacMoses Right, of course. Same theological problem, different resolutions.
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@msh210 ... and the types of resolutions available can directly affect (at least for me) the gastroentorologic effects of the problems with the two classes of hypotheses.
 
msh210
msh210
@IsaacMoses Your gut is happier with less-than-strictly-literal interpretation of the Torah than with less-than-strictly-literal interpretation of the scientific evidence? Sounds reasonable. :-)
 
Isaac Moses
Isaac Moses
@msh210 Bottom line: words lend themselves to (or even demand) more flexible interpretation than observations do
2
@msh210 ... (And I know you won't assume this of me, but FTR, no, I'm not saying that everything in the Torah is infinitely re-interpretable to mean whatever by whoever, chas veshalom.)
 
 
2 hours later…
Stack Exchange
Stack Exchange
6:36 PM
Blog - Stack Exchange: Podcast #41 – Neither of Us Have Muscles
Alex Miller on January 28, 2013

Welcome to Stack Exchange Podcast #41, featuring Joel Spolsky, Jay Hanlon, David Fullerton, Nick Craver, and Geoff Dalgas, with Producer Alex calling in from Denver!  We have a bunch of systems administrators and the like here, because we are in the process of moving datacenters to our new home in New York City.

So what’s involved in the move? We hired movers to do all the de-racking and truck driving, so the work done by SE employees involved laying everything out and then wiring it back up. …

 
Double AA
Double AA
@IsaacMoses Well said. Not only have scientific theories become more precise, but also the technology used for observing the universe has as well (particularly in the last 150 years). So corrections/tweaks to earlier scientific theories would have to be finer and finer in order to not have been noticed already. (Like how relativity wasn't noticed for millennia because its effects are so weak at regular speeds.)
@StackExchange Welcome back! @HodofHod missed you.
3
 
 
2 hours later…
HodofHod
HodofHod
8:12 PM
@StackExchange Hi! I always knew the evil Meta-Man could never defeat you!!
2
 
 
2 hours later…
Fred
Fred
10:06 PM
@DoubleAA I've heard that reason before, but I'm not sure if it is historically accurate or merely an apocryphal post-facto justification (cross-posted ad loc.).
 

« first day (628 days earlier)      last day (4116 days later) »