[quote]Christine wrote:
^
Ha. I first read that as really shitty day in the universe.
[/quote]
HA! It may well have been, but I can only speak for my little part of the universe, [/quote]
Me too! LOL…[/quote]
Well, at least I wasn’t the only one :). I got stuck teaching a basic (100 level) physics course this semester and gave their first test today. Unfortunately, there were a lot of answers like this on it. I hate teaching the basic physics courses.[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t enlarge when I click on it. What does it say?
[/quote]
It is a simple work-energy spring problem where they were supposed to solve for the compression of the spring, but the student drew an elephant in the path and said it couldn’t be solved because an elephant was in the way. Normally I would just laugh at it, but the average grade on the test was 67% and it wasn’t that hard of a test. What messed up your day?
[/quote]
Your fault. You shouldn’t have used a spring. Springs are shiny and students are easily distracted. Good effort though. I’ll give you a solid C.
Your fault. You shouldn’t have used a spring. Springs are shiny and students are easily distracted. Good effort though. I’ll give you a solid C. [/quote]
That wasn’t on the test, it was just a funny picture I found on the internet. The Work-Energy Theorem is a bit beyond this class. This was more like "a car travels x feet east to point 1, turns and travels southwest at 30 degrees to a point(point 2) directly south of it’s starting point. How far did the car travel during the trip. Out of over 200 tests, there were at least 30 that said “look at the odometer” Although I was surprised at how many of them knew what an odometer was. And now I feel worse, that was the first C I have ever gotten! Thanks a lot.
The evolution vs. creation debate is annoying, largely because neither side realizes what they are talking about has little or nothing to do with the other.
It’s like the difference between why a birthday cake is baked and the recipe used to bake the cake.
One is motive; the other means.
The recipe does not mean there is no baker or no birthday. It’s just HOW the cake was baked. It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a birthday or whose birtday it was or whatever. Evolution is like that. It’s what we understand the recipe to be. Evolution is the means, not the motive.
Similarly, the existance of a baker and a birthday does not eliminate the existence of a recipe. Heck, the existence of store-bought-cakes does not eliminate the fact a cake was baked. Again, that’s motive, not means.
Couple other points:
Yeah, it’s 6th of Adar, 5772. But the sages are very clear that they made no pretense of correct time keeping prior to the First Temple period, and only got vaguely accurate (as modern people understand it) with the Second Temple. So stop trying to add shit up by adding the generations together. The time since existence is unknown.
In fact, even the correct time is still a lunar calendar, which about 11 days off (shorter) from the solar calendar. Now multiply that error by 3 millinium, and that’s just the issues we know of, off hand.
Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six “days” of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth “day”).
When you can simulate erosion, or how long it took Everest to reach its peak you don’t even need carbon dating to know the difference between 6,000 years or 60,000,000 years. You don’t need a pHd or to be a wise religious clergy who read stuff off a book to understand basic things like this. Yes there can be errors but when you’re talking about 300million years and your 6,000 years it is a silly debate to have.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
The evolution vs. creation debate is annoying, largely because neither side realizes what they are talking about has little or nothing to do with the other.
It’s like the difference between why a birthday cake is baked and the recipe used to bake the cake.
One is motive; the other means.
The recipe does not mean there is no baker or no birthday. It’s just HOW the cake was baked. It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a birthday or whose birtday it was or whatever. Evolution is like that. It’s what we understand the recipe to be. Evolution is the means, not the motive.
Similarly, the existance of a baker and a birthday does not eliminate the existence of a recipe. Heck, the existence of store-bought-cakes does not eliminate the fact a cake was baked. Again, that’s motive, not means.
Couple other points:
Yeah, it’s 6th of Adar, 5772. But the sages are very clear that they made no pretense of correct time keeping prior to the First Temple period, and only got vaguely accurate (as modern people understand it) with the Second Temple. So stop trying to add shit up by adding the generations together. The time since existence is unknown.
In fact, even the correct time is still a lunar calendar, which about 11 days off (shorter) from the solar calendar. Now multiply that error by 3 millinium, and that’s just the issues we know of, off hand.
Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six “days” of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth “day”).[/quote]
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
The evolution vs. creation debate is annoying, largely because neither side realizes what they are talking about has little or nothing to do with the other.
It’s like the difference between why a birthday cake is baked and the recipe used to bake the cake.
One is motive; the other means.
The recipe does not mean there is no baker or no birthday. It’s just HOW the cake was baked. It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a birthday or whose birtday it was or whatever. Evolution is like that. It’s what we understand the recipe to be. Evolution is the means, not the motive.
Similarly, the existance of a baker and a birthday does not eliminate the existence of a recipe. Heck, the existence of store-bought-cakes does not eliminate the fact a cake was baked. Again, that’s motive, not means.
Couple other points:
Yeah, it’s 6th of Adar, 5772. But the sages are very clear that they made no pretense of correct time keeping prior to the First Temple period, and only got vaguely accurate (as modern people understand it) with the Second Temple. So stop trying to add shit up by adding the generations together. The time since existence is unknown.
In fact, even the correct time is still a lunar calendar, which about 11 days off (shorter) from the solar calendar. Now multiply that error by 3 millinium, and that’s just the issues we know of, off hand.
Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six “days” of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth “day”).[/quote]
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
The evolution vs. creation debate is annoying, largely because neither side realizes what they are talking about has little or nothing to do with the other.
It’s like the difference between why a birthday cake is baked and the recipe used to bake the cake.
One is motive; the other means.
The recipe does not mean there is no baker or no birthday. It’s just HOW the cake was baked. It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a birthday or whose birtday it was or whatever. Evolution is like that. It’s what we understand the recipe to be. Evolution is the means, not the motive.
Similarly, the existance of a baker and a birthday does not eliminate the existence of a recipe. Heck, the existence of store-bought-cakes does not eliminate the fact a cake was baked. Again, that’s motive, not means.
Couple other points:
Yeah, it’s 6th of Adar, 5772. But the sages are very clear that they made no pretense of correct time keeping prior to the First Temple period, and only got vaguely accurate (as modern people understand it) with the Second Temple. So stop trying to add shit up by adding the generations together. The time since existence is unknown.
In fact, even the correct time is still a lunar calendar, which about 11 days off (shorter) from the solar calendar. Now multiply that error by 3 millinium, and that’s just the issues we know of, off hand.
Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six “days” of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth “day”).[/quote]
You seem to be glossing over the myriad of serious problems created by trying to meld the two systems of thought.
In regards to your point #3, whether “many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge” what you mentioned or not, a careful study of the book of beginnings will cause a reasonable man to eliminate the idea that the word yom can mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day. To do otherwise requires too many gymnastic moves.[/quote]
The problem I have always had with that…is that a day IS A SUBJECTIVE concept. It means nothing without standing on one point on Earth at a given time. That doesn’t apply to something that could exist OUTSIDE of time itself.
I understand there are many literalists who think every word is exactly as written…but maybe the Tower of Babel had more to do with what they were learning and not an actual super tall structure that somehow pierced Heaven.
In regards to your point #3, whether “many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge” what you mentioned or not, a careful study of the book of beginnings will cause a reasonable man to eliminate the idea that the word yom can mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day. To do otherwise requires too many gymnastic moves.[/quote]
There is no “day” (as we understand it) without the Sun. But here:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve been up since about 2:30 AM working on this system architecture document and I’m telling you that this day feels like it’s been about 2 millenia long.
The problem I have always had with that…is that a day IS A SUBJECTIVE concept. It means nothing without standing on one point on Earth at a given time. That doesn’t apply to something that could exist OUTSIDE of time itself…[/quote]
Time WAS part of creation. It was created on Day One. It, like the rest of creation, appeared ex nihilo.
God existed outside of Time, of course, before Day One and continues to do so now. Even the word “now” is a concept that doesn’t pertain to Him. He sees all of time as “now.” It does not restrain Him in any way.[/quote]
Exactly…so what significant would a day mean to someone who has no use for the concept of “time”?
No, I do not believe the full 24 hour day concept or the exactly 6 days of work and 24 hours of rest thing. An entity existing outside of time would need no “rest”. He would simply cease doing whatever he was done manipulating.
The Bible wasn’t written for a room filled with PhD’s to debate on a level far beyond that of the average uneducated person.
It was written in order to be understood on a basic level.
It doesn’t mean the ideas involved are false.
It just means there is nothing wrong with asking questions.
In fact…many of those disciples were flat out social rebels. They went against popular beliefs.
What does it say?