This week, a survey by the Gallup company was published, which shows that 46% of Americans believe in creation in the religious formula - that is, God created humans in their current form all at once during the last ten thousand years.
This week, a survey by the Gallup company was published, which shows that 46% of Americans believe in creation in the religious formula - that is, God created humans in their current form all at once during the last ten thousand years.
The proportion holding this view of human origin has remained unchanged for over 30 years. In addition to creationists, about a third of Americans believe humans evolved, but with God's guidance, and 15% say humans evolved, but God had no part in the process.
No one will be shocked that the answers correlate well with the respondent's religious views and that most Republicans align with the creationist view. Two-thirds of Americans who attend weekly religious classes choose the creation alternative compared to 25% of those who say they rarely or never attend church.
There is a big difference between the opinions of Americans who take religion classes once a week or once a month and those of the other two groups. Still, those who rarely or never attended church were more likely to believe that God guided an evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved without divine assistance.
The blog with liberal views hot air says that what is interesting about the Gallup poll compared to other polls on the subject in the past is the wording of the questions. Instead of asking direct questions such as "Did God make man allowable or did (or did) man evolve from ape-like creatures?", Gallup opted for more sophisticated questions asking which phrase best describes your feelings.
The blog with liberal views hor air says that what is interesting about the Gallup poll compared to other polls on the subject in the past is the wording of the questions. Instead of asking direct questions such as "Did God make man allow or did man evolve from ape-like creatures," Gallup chose more sophisticated questions asking which phrase best describes your feelings.
1. Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced climbers of life, but God guided this process.
2. Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced climbers of life, but God had no part in this process.
3. God created humans more or less in their present form all at once within the last 10,000 years or so.
It can be noticed that none of the options goes as far as "there is no God, therefore the question is pointless", or at the other end, "the interpretation of the Bible is literal and God created man from dust and one woman from his ribs." ” According to the blog writers, such surveys provide more value if they add a few more options in this direction and do not formulate complex questions so as not to offend anyone.
167 תגובות
If they had checked with the Israelis - we would have received first prize. Before Iran, before Saudi Arabia.
R.H
I mean by slow development..., that the talent for building a nest did not arise suddenly, from some random thing that happened in the genome
Rather, it was built during evolution (probably, a nest built by a sparrow millions of years ago is much less complex than the one of today). I understand that according to your opinion the talent of the sparrow, for example, is indeed created by random changes in the genes.
In my opinion, the same "development" exists in dozens and hundreds of "talents" in all animals and is the main component
In evolution and not random changes in the genome.
I am not referring to the issue here, where and in what way those "talents" are kept and passed on between the generations.
similar, thanks for the link, I didn't know Lamarx,
Ernest,
It is not clear to me what you mean by "slow, intergenerational development during evolution, step by step. Regardless of randomness." ?
Development of what? Genetic changes? Do you mean the Hallmarkist approach?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D
R.H
Thanks for the information. It is clear to me that the place and form of saving the feature is difficult to find and understand.
However, my argument was (in a different matter), that complex skills, such as nest building, do not arise from random changes in the genome,
but from a slow, intergenerational development during evolution, step after step, regardless of randomness.
That development is a major factor in evolution, and not random changes in the genome that survived.
Thanks R.H., that's what I thought. If the genes were found, we would already have heard about it.
Thank you Ernest. I think the topic is exhausted.
Yuval and Ernst,
There is no answer to your question about where and how the behaviors are coded. Many works have been done on the subject and the assumption is that it is a complex combination of genes that results in specific connections of neurons in the brain. You discuss complex behavior such as defecating in a box, but it is difficult to explain genetically even much simpler behaviors. What gene causes 100% of cats to howl when they are in pain? What gene makes them curl up when they're cold? How do they know to eat meat and not fruit? What kind of garden makes 100% of people disgusted by the smell of feces and love the smell of flowers?
In a short search I found a nice summary of the Open University:
http://www.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=92997377&nTocEntryID=93000183#119.1652.4.fitwidth
If you want, you can also refer to more professional articles.
Regarding even simpler things, precise mechanisms have been deciphered that cause bacteria to be attracted to or escape from different substances, but this is a simple behavior of a single cell without a neuronal system.
jubilee
I think you have a mistake
1. A chick cannot learn from its parents because the process of building the nest is done before it is created.
2. Chicks in the incubator know how to build a nest
3. It is not possible to teach how to build a nest, because there is no plan, or order, or method, it is talent not information.
4. Even if a certain creature learns from its parents, the learning material is also not created randomly.
It is clear to everyone that traits and information are inherited, and this mechanism offers a technical, interesting and challenging operation.
But infinitely more significant is that the process of development in the second great evolution is not mainly or entirely the result of a combination between random changes in genetics and the ability to survive resulting from the changes.
but also or only or mainly improvement/optimization/enhancement of abilities during the life of a creature.
My job is to bring science news. Along the way I also bring the gospel of rationality which is an integral part of science. Dealing with the second part prevents me from dealing with the first part because time is limited.
The difference between a normal reaction and a holy war is that if you are wrong and are explained to you, you have to accept the correction and admit the mistake. Fortifying yourself in an anti-scientific position throughout hundreds of comments shows that you are not interested in knowing the truth but rather inserting your own opinions as you have admitted yourself. Such things are not exactly fair responses.
to my father,
It is not clear to me how to identify sentences that are related to a holy war and those that are not
Does any opposition to the spirit of the matter in this article amount to sacrilege?
Can you give examples of my correspondence?
You also claimed that I was wasting your time, but this is part of your occupation to confront those who oppose your philosophy of life, what's more, you don't have to respond to me, because for every one of my sentences there are a hundred others who do the job just as well.
Ernest,
Genetic inheritance is not the only way in which behavior is transmitted from generation to generation. In the example of building the nest that you gave, it can be argued that the chicks may have learned from their parents. But in the example I gave the orphan cat was completely isolated from all the cats in the world. All domestic cats in the world, without exception, hide their needs - usually by digging a hole in the ground and covering it afterwards. This is a feature deeply embedded in the body/soul of domestic cats and it repeats itself with utmost precision in all individuals of this species. We do not know of such a precise inheritance mechanism that is not genetic.
You are talking about slow non-random development during evolution. Whether there was such a thing or not is already a question concerning the Darwinian mechanism, which I am not going into at the moment. What I'm looking for now is the genetic code that dictates such complex behavior.
You are not prevented from responding, you are prevented from engaging in holy wars here. You probably don't understand the difference.
Unfortunately, I am prevented from commenting on this site even though I have not undertaken any missionary activity and I do not even wear a cap on my head
good week
The important and significant thing is that there may be a slow development during evolution that is not the result of random changes in genes.
Ernest,
My impression of RH is that he has a degree in biology and that one of his areas of specialization is genetics (RH! Please correct, if necessary). I also studied biology and I have an idea about genetics.
I assume that these complex traits are coded somehow in the DNA, but at the moment I don't know about the location of the genes and how it happens. Since Shar.H has not responded so far, I guess he is also wondering like us.
In my opinion, the researcher who discovers the genetic array (probably, many genes) that encodes some instinct, will win the Nobel Prize.
jubilee
I realized that R.H. still hasn't responded to your question, in the meantime I listened to lectures in the field, and it really didn't help
I think that most of the research in this field is concerned with more tangible, more visible heredity.
Ever since the days of Mendel Darwin. and before them
It does not seem that talent is created randomly, from a genetic change, but according to the evolution it was created during. Hence, it was created in a long process in the creature itself, during its life.. He allowed this claim to be strengthened, if it turned out that the nest built by a certain species became more and more complex during evolution.
One that responds well, thanks for the investment.
I know these verses. Their concern is the distinction between rape and adultery, and that is very clear here. What I am looking for is, for example, the reason why women in countries like Iran are afraid to complain about rape because they know that by doing so they risk a horrible death.
Here are the verses from the Torah. This, according to the religious, is what God wants his creatures to do
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0522.htm
XNUMX Because a man who slept with a woman will be found in the husband's house, and both of them will die - the man who slept with the woman, and the woman; And in Berat Hara, Israel. {S} XNUMX For there will be a virgin youth, married to a man; And she found a man in the city, and he lay with her. And you brought them both out to the gate of that city, and you stoned them with stones and they died - the boy for something that was not shouted in the city, and the man for something He who answered the wife of his neighbor; And in the heart of evil, from your presence. {S} Thus, if in the field the man finds the betrothed girl, and the man holds her, and lies with her: and dies, the man who lay with her - alone. So you shall not do anything to the boy, the boy does not have a mortal sin: for when a man rises up against his neighbor, and kills his soul - yes, this thing. XNUMX For in the field, he is found; She cried out, the betrothed girl, and there is no savior for her. {S} Because he found a man, a virgin boy who was not married, and took her, and slept with her; And we were found. XNUMX And Nathan, the man who slept with her, gave to the boy's father fifty silver; And if he had a wife, under his answer, he would not be able to send her, all his days.
for Jubilee
From the Wikipedia link
The Torah (Deuteronomy XNUMX, XNUMX et seq.) distinguishes between the rape of a married woman (including an "engaged" girl - one who has been sanctified but not yet married) and the rape of a single woman. In the case of the rape of an engaged girl in the city, the Torah sentences the rapist and the rapist to death, with the reasoning: "The boy for something that was not shouted in the city, and the man for something that tortured his neighbor's wife." In the case of the rape of an engaged girl in the field, the Torah sentences the rapist alone to death, reasoning: "For when a man rises up against his neighbor, and kills his soul - yes, this thing. Because in the field, it is found; She cried out, the betrothed girl, and there is no savior for her." The commentators explain that even in the city, if the girl could not scream, only the rapist must die, and vice versa: even in the field, if there were people there who could save her and she did not scream, this indicates her desire in the relationship with the rapist.
one that responds well,
I went to the links you provided and found no evidence for your claim. Please provide detailed verses, if you can.
Thanks in advance
One that responds well, thanks (and I'm not very good at impersonation 😛 )
The reason I asked is that I also claim these things, but until now I had no references
For Yuval the imitator
The punishment for rape was taken from the Torah. Read:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אונס
Search there: rape in the Bible
You are also welcome to enter: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מעמד_האישה_ביהדות In order to read what status the Torah gave to women
That is, those who accept the Torah explicitly, must also accept the Torah's appalling judgment regarding women, including the sale of daughters by their fathers, including the murder of an adulteress, and including explicit support for slavery (and incidentally includes the fact that Judaism is a polygamous religion).
I want to hone in on this point, as the post talks about how 46% of creationist Americans accept the creation story As Is. Those 46% who accept the Torah explicitly (and in Israel, in my opinion, the number is much larger) must also accept the terrible immorality in the Torah. What you will discover if you bring up these points in front of religious people is that there is always an interpretation of the Sages that softens the madness in the Torah, as well as the magic word pardes (simple, sermon, hint and secret) but here there is a very serious self-contradiction: why accept the The story of creation As Is (even though there are 2 of these, brother, what a mistake of the Torah writers) and the murder of the rapist is not except in the light of interpretation?
The answer is: just like that and ignorance. Murdering the rapist is madness that only terrible primitiveness and treating women as objects can explain, and most American creationists are civilized people (not sure about the Israelis), so it is clear that it is forbidden to murder a rapist, but belief in the story of creation does not require anyone to murder anyone else (perhaps only the souls of children who are obligated to believe in the Torah) and therefore it is possible, after all, science is not relevant to them, except that they write on computers, drive cars, use microwaves and go to the doctor for medical treatment.
Ignorance is of course another option: most believers do not remember that this is the punishment written in the Torah for rape, or what the punishment is for adulterous women, or what should be done to homosexuals, or alternatively they are consciously ignorant and avoid getting into it, otherwise their world will collapse on them since most of them have mothers, sisters, aunts etc. and therefore this ignorance, the one that allows them to issue pearls such as: you don't need to be an expert on evolution to contradict it, protects them. But the dog is buried: Ovadia Yosef tells us that it is forbidden to save a gentile on Shabbat and if this prohibition had been instigated, it might have been possible to abolish it, but this prohibition is Dariyata, that is, there are still some religious people who think that there is value in the Torah itself and while it is permissible to interpret it a little, but hey, it still exists and must be ruled accordingly.
If you want proof that the Torah was written by a man, then this is the proof. The Torah recorded what was accepted in the tribes of the area (and perhaps made some moral progress) and after all, this is how women, gays, children, prisoners of war, etc. were once treated (and today still in quite a few parts of the world, and soon here) and therefore what is written in the Torah is exactly what can be expected, if people They wrote the Torah without any heavenly help, whereas if God had indeed given the Torah, its morality would be temporary and not such that after a few hundred years it would change (after all, the Sages were required to deal with this madness even then) and after a few thousand years, it would be completely reversed.
"The way to prove that the Jewish religion is the source and true doctrine is still a long way off"
to 'know'.. (?)
why so far It's actually easy..
The 'Jewish religion' in the halachic version of up to 800 years ago, (there is a growing group of crazy people here who insist on not moving forward with the times and the world) is not something that none of us would want to rule over us.
There are enough examples:
Halachic justification for misogyny, sex with children. Xenophobia.. etc. etc.
If you want I will bring examples.
There are places in the world that are still stuck there
For example this nice guy..:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yl8g8S6F3do
We live in a democratic country with modern values
The knower + the questioner. The awl is out of the bag. You did not come here to react but to win a holy war. It seems to me that you are wrong, you adopt a Muslim approach to eliminating secularism and atheism, not a Jewish approach.
In any case, it doesn't seem to me that the surfers here will like holy wars, and especially those who believe that in order to save the country, as many stupid believers as possible should be turned into rational atheists.
I would be happy if you do your holy wars on other sites, if it is not done voluntarily, you will be blocked. Too bad.
It is interesting that you demand pluralism only when it comes to the fight against secularism, but when you are asked for pluralism - to recognize the right of the secularists everywhere and everywhere to live according to their unbelief (and Chabad's violent takeover of Ramat Aviv is really only the tip of the iceberg of your dark empire) - here you stand the hind legs. You cannot enter a Chabad village to spread the only truth, nor can you write something in your forums.
Thank you if you help us and stop this holy war. What's more, I read your arguments, they are unscientific, they are extremely weak, and you will not convince any scientist. Unfortunately, you may convince teenagers that their only sin is that they studied in the Shiralite education system, which is wary of confrontations and therefore actually submits to religion and does not allow anyone to know that there is such a thing as atheism. As someone who is worried about the fate of the country, I want to keep one clean site where they can read without fear of repentance. For example, I don't have a Jewish channel like in YNET. And not for nothing.
What's more, you definitely manage to steal from me, for example, time that is intended for new writing. And that's the only thing I prefer to block so as not to waste unnecessary time.
And besides, I am strict about copyright. All articles published by external bodies are approved by those bodies (magazines for example). According to the law, if a body whose materials have been copied reports to me, I must immediately delete the infringing comment.
one that responds well
Please get in touch if you can
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
Thanks
one that responds well
https://www.hayadan.org.il/almost-half-of-american-creationists-040612/#comment-344571
Please bring up the fact that the rape victims must be killed together with the rapist.
It is also possible by email
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
Thanks
For Rafi:
The way to prove that the Jewish religion is the source and true Torah is still far away,
I start my journey here in order to turn atheists into agonists who believe in a supreme being above nature and from there everyone will choose their faith: Buddha, Islam, etc....
Therefore, Einstein is more inclined to the agonistic current because he believed in Spinoza's God and also hinted at a supreme being.
And not only Einstein, many famous scientists there..
Hence we have to wonder about the nature of this entity that maintains the laws of the universe at every moment in order for the world to continue to exist: that the constants in the universe will maintain the constant laws, that the electrons will maintain their correct orbit around the atom and not move a little closer or move away a little, that the living cell will continue to maintain all the regular processes in it and etc.
Regarding copyright theft, there is a very well-known saying: "The thief is exempt from stealing"
There is only one creator and in this holy war all the means sanctify the goal.
The knower + the questioner
You asked me to show you, I showed you. Evolution as a proven fact was stated by a biology professor in the most direct way. What exactly do you expect, that he will explain to you all the material on youtube? As I wrote, he also says this on YouTube in all sorts of debates and symposia on the subject. This means that there is a biology professor here, who is willing to risk his professional prestige and yet he says it in the clearest way, in a direct photo for the whole world to see.
Regarding bluntness, I'll let the readers judge and I didn't write that you don't know how to accept criticism.
You are wrong again. You are using the appeal to authority incorrectly (which indicates a terrible ignorance of the basic concepts), and in fact you are using the appeal to authority in the most wrong way and I will explain: an appeal to authority is required and correct when the authority is relevant to the subject and is a terrible logical fallacy when the authority is not relevant and therefore, certainly to rely on an expert Evolution on the subject of evolution is not a logical fallacy but rather a completely legitimate and recommended way to learn, like relying on a mathematician to understand a mathematical concept, on a doctor in medical matters, etc. On the other hand, relying on an expert in mathematics, physics, history, etc. to answer the question of whether God exists, when the subject is not in his area of expertise, is a logical fallacy. This is the definition of a logical fallacy. Go to Wikipedia to check what an appeal to authority is. It is difficult, but you are even more mistaken because the authority you use, Einstein, does not support the existence of a creator but the God of Spinoza, and I challenge you to find the quote you brought in the original language. In addition, there is a direct reference by him to the lies that are told in his name, and includes a reference to this by his biographer. In any case, this is an appeal to authority, every philosopher asked on the subject, so I'm not really interested in what he thought of Spinoza's God (who is awfully easy to accept) or any other creator or what any other scientist thinks on the subject. What he thought is not decisive.
When can we get the opinions of scientists on the subject: When a scientist comes and says: We have discovered something empirical in physics that eliminates a creator and this is exactly what Hawking claims in his book, and this is exactly what Professor Lawrence Krauss claims in his lecture on YouTube and in his book. Again, he does not claim that a creator is not possible but that physics now understands how a big bang is possible even without a creator.
You wrote: "Also, one does not need to be an evolution expert in order not to accept the claim of a common origin for man and ape, as I showed above" - I will let the readers judge this sentence, it stands on its own
"I gave the example of Einstein because Einstein was not a stupid person. He was one of the greatest scientists the world has known, so his opinion is considered and you can be impressed by it.
From Einstein's words, we see that the conclusion was clear to Einstein: nature is not random and chaotic, it is planned and the fruit of thought. Creation does not work"
The 'knower':
Einstein also wrote:
"The Jewish religion, like any other religion, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
"And the Bible is a collection of respectable but still primitive legends - and nevertheless childish." "
Well.. so until now Einstein interested you and now suddenly not?..
R.H., thank you
"We" are serious and selfish.
The issue we encountered is complex behaviors (instincts) that are probably genetically inherited because they are not acquired through learning from parents to offspring. Ernst brought as an example the developed building ability of certain birds and I the special way in which a cat buries its needs. I read to you in the hope that you could shed light on how these traits are coded in genes (if at all).
jubilee,
Tell me what you know (who are you?) and I promise I'll try to enlighten your eyes if the genome codes for more complex traits than you know... but I don't promise I'll succeed.
the knower + the questioner,
First of all, it is a naive and outdated approach to think that all the genetic changes we see are point mutations. There are massive changes resulting from the introduction of extensive genetic elements, transposons, viruses, recombination events, translocations, and others that result in substantial, non-point changes.
Secondly, I very much agree with you about the different philosophies of life. Just to illustrate, I can back up the entire paragraph I wrote above with scientific articles that not only describe the phenomena but also the way to test them. That is, if you want too (assuming you have the right equipment) you can repeat the experiments and check their correctness. This is the scientific way.
On the other hand, the entire paragraph you wrote in your answer from "In the Sanhedrin.." to the point where you moved to a tune is based on something someone wrote, on your feelings of what is true and what is not, but do you have any shred of evidence for all of these that goes beyond mere feeling?
Ernest,
One possibility to solve the mystery is to assume that the genetic load encodes more complex traits than we know. R.H., maybe he can enlighten our eyes.
Avi Blizovsky,
Indeed they "copy-pasted" but they did not "miss a little" but they wrote on purpose. This is a "trick" that is accepted even today by creationists and rabbis: taking an accepted belief and "adapting" it to the needs of those who set the religion.
Who knows
Again something is not clear to me, she wrote to me
"You have the ability to see spirituality because it is embedded in every person in his very existence as a part of God"
Do I have to understand from here that according to the Kabbalah, it also exists in the tormentors of Israel like the cursed hawks.
"We became man" means that there were many gods. They just took a previous story and converted it, but missed a bit in the copy paste.
The knower + the questioner
Could you provide a source from the Midrash of Sages for what you wrote regarding the difference between chapter XNUMX and chapter XNUMX?
jubilee
It's really, really true, I got the impression that this part of heredity, which is undoubtedly very broad, is interesting and important
But not so much researched, even though its understanding would have greatly contributed to many fields. Well in the field of cats, a kitten Nano that grew up in our homes moved in the house next to a plastic toy snake, it's unbelievable how he behaved as if he came back from a training camp in Japan and came back with a 10 den snake in Jisho.
Describe to you what our world will look like and what a transformation it will go through, if we do find out what charges we come into the world with, it is strange that the world of science knows that there are charges and knows that they have a very significant effect on our lives and yet it does very little research, relative to other fields.
As for your orphaned cat, I think he has inherited digging and covering skills and the need to protect
Or maybe to hide his needs, I claim that he has skills because all cats do this, but under different conditions, similar to nest building.
The knower who asks:
Save us a 'paste copy' of creationist garbage from Amnon Yitzchak's 'Hidbarot' and 'Shofar'.
(Nevertheless, this is theft of 'author' rights..)
the knower + the questioner,
lamented I also lament the human consciousness which does not succeed in taking off
Seriously, of course! I completely agree with you. Here is also something from my experience, a question that has long occurred to me:
In my distant childhood I adopted a kitten. He grew up without a cat mother. The milk he drank was cow's milk. And yet, even though no one taught him manners and manners, he began to bury his needs in the sand at an early age. We call such behavior "instinct", but it is a very complex trait to be explained by genetic inheritance.
to R.H.:
First of all, it is good to know that there is an agreement between people with different life philosophies, maybe different sectors of the public should adopt this method and resolve the divisions between them for good.
I agree with you, for example, that the genetic closeness between a human and a chimpanzee is greater than that between a human and a gibbon. The assumption is that the transitions occurred by random mutations.
But the mutations have to be constructive and not destructive and occur in the exact location to cause a monkey to become a human, if we come "generously" towards the believers of the theory and assume that in each generation fifty thousand random mutations occurred that "unluckily" struck at exactly the right place and at the right time to cause "desired development". A simple calculation will show that at least fifty thousand generations are required and 50 thousand transitional forms should have been invented. In any case, about 50 types of monkeys should have been found as fossils between us and the chimpanzee!!! And what did they actually find? How many "transitional forms"?
Hypotheses, guesses and reconstructions of individual skeleton parts! This fact dropped the ground under the "evidence" that was supposed to be discovered in the excavations, a fact that forced the believers to believe in a "fantastic leap" in "almost a miracle" or even in the "impossible"!
In the absence of transitional forms (thousands of them...), the believing scientists are left with two options: belief in "wonderful leaps in development", that is, millions of precise and well-timed mutations ("neo-druinism" - NDT). or belief in creation directed by a creator. The choice (or preference) is given to every person (almost)…
Surprising discoveries in the Sanhedrin would have given Darwin and his friends much pleasure:
In the Sanhedrin, page KT, page 1, we read: A perusal of what is written here shows that in the past "transitions in the opposite direction" took place; Humans have become monkeys! It is "likely to assume" that these transitions did not occur "randomly" due to "blind mutations", but rather by a deliberate and intentional change. We are not dealing with the occult, but it is easy to be tempted to imagine that the Creator may have changed only XNUMX% of the human genetic material and of course also removed from the person the spirituality that distinguishes him. It is understood that this is a punishment for undesirable spiritual behavior, a punishment whose main meaning is the denial of the right to choose.
Regarding the second part of the question:
As mentioned, the relationship between the Creator and the creation is different. Not that the world exists and G-d only revives it, but that G-d also constitutes the world anew every moment - as it is said: "He who renews his goodness every day is always an act of Genesis".
This explanation applies not only to man, or the animals or plants that we see as alive and have energy in them. Also regarding the inanimate object that seems to us to be dead, that seems to us to have no energy and no movement, this is also the case. Even the inanimate is brought to life by the divine code. The word of the name is found in everything, and without the word of the name, that object would cease to exist in an instant. Just as if the software on the computer were to be deleted, then the image would disappear, so if the Almighty stopped saying one of the statements he made in the creation of the world, that part of creation would cease to exist
As for the laboratories, you won't see them because there is no thought that perceives and sees the Creator and his actions, but it is clear that our 5 senses are not enough to perceive the reality of the Creator
melody:
How did you come to these hasty conclusions, you entered the discussion with slander and sent me several links that do not work for me, so I don't know how to respond to you
To my father:
I am not concerned with incitement in front of a certain public but with the love of Israel wherever they are, if Chabad do not behave in accordance with the moral code to which they are commanded, it is clear that I do not vouch for them, but since I do not live in Ramat Aviv I cannot address this issue and judge them.
To Ernest:
You don't need my confirmation, because I am not the creator but simply someone who learned a little about Kabbalah and the messages it conveys to us
As I mentioned, you have the ability to see spirituality because it is embedded in every person in his very existence as a divine part from above, especially for a Jew who is a divine spark in his soul.
But there are hidden things and delays that prevent you from doing this, I don't know you as I mentioned and I don't know what the barriers are that prevent you, there are many possibilities such as prejudices on the subject of religion that cause hatred and blindness, but if you come with a positive attitude and ask the Creator to signal to you about his existence, you will be able to get closer to him, I was also away from him for 35 years.
To one who responds well:
I don't understand what you expect me to respond to a one-minute clip, why don't you write what you think instead of turning to the authorities as you claimed in my reference to Einstein's articles, it is also not clear to me why you claim that I am blunt and unable to accept constructive criticism, as I accept here on the left And right in this forum and not complaining.
Also, you don't have to be an evolution expert to not accept the claim of a common origin for humans and monkeys, as I showed above.
For Jubilee:
You are right, the need of a supreme father laments us, because he is assimilated into us from our very existence by the Creator, but the ego prevents us from this approach and our work is to work on the ego and reduce it so that there is room in the heart for the divine light so that we can accept its reality.
So far, peace and good night
"When paleontologists find a skull, and build a "primitive man" from it, do we know that all other humans looked like this? Take for example the first Neanderthal man found. At first he was presented as a bent creature resembling a monkey. After that, it was found that the remains were a deformed person, and suffered from arthritis!"
The knower who asks:
I'm sure Neanderthals don't interest you too much (like the other skulls), and you're not a fan of paleontology, right?
Otherwise you wouldn't throw out nonsense like: "Afterwards it was found that the remains were a deformed person, and suffered from arthritis"
(as if they hadn't mapped the Neanderthal genome)
Let's leave paleontology to the paleontologists, and biology to the biologists..
The Neanderthal is 'gay' (not a species), and indeed it is not about such an ancient 'cousin', so that even his DNA is exhausted..
In addition, since it is not that old, many skulls were found from it... and since many skulls and skeletons were found, you probably know that this is not an anomaly.
And this is before the era of genome mapping.
jubilee
The one I wrote earlier "I believe that we are completely controlled by emotions, senses, and things that are rooted
I think we haven't researched what is inherited. I claim that the need for faith originates there as well.
As an example of the complexity of inheritance, a bird builds a nest, seemingly something simple that has been inherited.
Let's take two birds that build a nest, it seems that similar forms of a nest are created, mainly in the inner part. However, each bird collects twigs that are different from the other, in shape, weight, type of wood, size, flexibility and color.
Every twig comes from a different place, distance, height. Some are clean, some are broken. With all these variables,
The bird will build a nest that is also different from the other, in its size, location, direction, height above the ground, the shape of the tree, the type of tree and more. And each nest is built from a different number of twigs, from a number of shapes and connections between the twigs, etc.
Hence the bird did not inherit a clear and orderly plan, but rather the need to build a nest, together with the people
the appropriate engineering skills to build it, otherwise there is no chance in the world that with all the diversity we have seen, a bird could build a nest.
It seems that the creatures in nature, including us, inherit much, much more than what we think, and this relates to the debate going on here, perhaps it concerns the needs that are inherited.
Israel,
Are you quoting Gedel's sentence?
Nessie, "the monster", was great for business. The XNUMXth 🙁
xianghua
A small addition: an agnostic means he doesn't know, meaning a kind of non-choice and the atheist disbelieves in the existence of a religious god. That is, those who admit that the world could have been created by reason can certainly be atheists. Anyway, I don't know anyone including Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss who doesn't admit it. In fact they say that it is clear that such intelligence can exist, but they claim that there is no evidence for it.
I'm willing to bet you're an atheist too because you disbelieve in the existence of Zeus and evil. I disbelieve (among other things) in the existence of the Jewish God, the one who gave the Torah, who hates gays and raped women (they should be murdered along with the rapist) but I do not claim that superintelligence cannot exist. That makes me an atheist and not an agnostic
jubilee
Logically, you cannot understand reason using that reason, as a computer cannot contain all the data on itself. I think that's what you're trying to do here, isn't it?
And what's wrong with faith, however naive it may be? The pet monster of Loch Ness for example, good or bad for business?
Did I hear the name of the movie expelled here? And more as evidence against evolution?
Do you even have the faintest idea what Dawkins' answer was to this ridiculous claim xianghua?
xianghua
A long time ago I asked you for a definition of the concept of "intelligence" and I have not yet received an answer. Perhaps, if you finally deign to define what intelligence is, I will have no objection to an intelligent creation.
In the meantime, I maintain my definition of this concept. Reason, according to my definition, is a way of making decisions in a Darwinian evolutionary process. An example of reason is the thought process of an engineer designing a device. He comes up with ideas, rejects some of them for various reasons, comes up with additional ideas on top of the ones he chose, again rejects and again comes up with more and God forbid until he gets the desired device.
There are those who believe that the creator of the world not only acted wisely but also intentionally. Are you one of them?
R.H
Your memory is probably short. I'll do it quickly because we've done it too many times. Before you is a replicating robot made of DNA. Would your explanation for its formation be that it was created by a natural process, or that some intelligence created it?
Regarding the evolution of man from ape, in fact I have already presented conflicting evidence here (100 pterv1 degeneration required for too much time) and herv-k found in chimpanzee and gorilla but not in man and more. natural selection arbitrates. But in order for it to become clear, it is first necessary to create new systems. And these require a change of many nucleotides.
As for Dawkins, come on...
By the way, in the movie expelled he actually admits that we may have been created by reason. As far as I know this is a typical definition of agnosticism, not atheism.
A desire is embedded in us, maybe not in all of us but clearly in some of us, to entrust the responsibility for our lives in the hands of a higher power. If we are ducks, this is the first moving object we see ("the seal"). If we are certain types of dogs (not foxes or jackals or wolves), we notice the superiority of man and surrender to him. When we are children, the supreme power is father and mother. This desire to hang on to someone bigger than us doesn't leave us even when we grow older, and then we find some lofty ideas to cling to and hear the voice of a towering leader. Unlike dogs and other animals that have humans to tame them, the highest being we can surrender to is himself a human like us. But we ask for superhuman strength, and if there is none, then we invent it. It is not for nothing that God is referred to, among other things, as a father ("God is our father", "our father is our king", "our father in heaven").
In my opinion, the source of belief in an intelligent creator is an innate urge. It is an emotional and not an intellectual belief, but we are controlled by emotion, and it manipulates the mind to its needs.
Who knows
Happy first thing for your approval "Obviously he gave you wisdom, intelligence and knowledge to the extent that it is enough to recognize him"
What I don't understand from this, how is it possible that we both received completely identical mental and spiritual vacation tools,
And it's clear to me that there is no higher power, no spirit, no soul, while you don't think like me.
For the knower + the questioner
I mean it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Lpa23mOw
And in quite a few debates on the Internet he repeats it
Beyond that, as I wrote, in order to understand evolution you need to be an expert in the field. Blunt writing does not strengthen a claim but presents you in an extreme light.
Also, I do not accept claims of scientists, but let them fight among themselves in the search for the truth. So far it's doing great.
And I suggest you look into what the flying spaghetti monster argument is because you're using it wrong and embarrassing yourself
Chabad called itself this name in a very cynical way. All Hasidism - and in particular a charismatic person like Shneor Zalman Maladi, was created as a counter to the rationality of the Enlightenment period. That is why the word education is still a dirty word in the ultra-Orthodox community.
Just like the Catholic Church became more and more mystical with the split as an alternative to the rationality (at least for its time, today not so much due to creationism) of the Protestants.
Unfortunately, this rebellion against the mind has assistance precisely from the sides of the mind.
Today they are harassing people in Ramat Aviv, under the auspices of the municipality and Don Corleone Huldai, they have taken over all the public buildings in the neighborhoods of Ramat Aviv, but only one place that is still prevented from carrying out their harassment, they accuse of racism. insolent
I marched a long time ago to establish a missionary preaching university in Kfar Havd and transfer all the missionaries and their shepherding flock to it, and replace them with billboards. Whoever wants their goods, let them come with an apology from their honor to Kfar Chabad and let them leave Ramat Aviv and their other settlements throughout the country.
The thinker who knows + the questioner who is not interested in the answer.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBSzUxg7gnjw&v=BSzUxg7gnjw&gl=IL
Recommend to see.
In any case, this is a discussion out of ignorance, you haven't been exposed to much + it doesn't really interest you, that's my opinion at least.
To Ernest:
Good question!!
It is clear that he gave you wisdom, understanding and knowledge to the extent that it is sufficient to recognize him, I do not know you, your opinions and beliefs, therefore I cannot take a position regarding you and what prevents or does not prevent you from recognizing him.
The purpose of creation is for everyone to know the Creator and this is his will, therefore everyone has these tools of Chabad to reach his reality, by exercising the intellect on the wisdom that sees all the wonders of creation and its infinite complexity, which cannot be a hand of chance but only intentional, you reach a degree of knowledge The creator of the matter is: do we approach the research of the truth in a neutral way or do we come from the beginning with a negative and anti charge: such as hatred against the religious establishment, ultra-Orthodox and more.
the knower + the questioner,
1) You will be surprised but I agree with almost everything you said. The bones of the human ancestors are few and difficult to deduce from them.
However, since there is nothing in human cells or in his genome that is fundamentally different from other animals. It is possible to create a continuous phylogenetic tree from his genome and that of the other animals without significant jumps or holes. It seems that the creation of man was no different from that of everyone else.
Since we see the evolution of bacteria, plants, and bacteria and in light of the similarity I mentioned above, the obvious conclusion is that the creation of man is not different from that of bacteria, meaning that he was created by a change of an ancestor.
Note that even xianghua already agreed in one of the previous discussions that there is evolution in bacteria, so the jump from them to man is not as big as it seems and there is no necessary need (except for wishful thinking) to assume the existence of a creator.
You can come and argue that the first cell in creation is an intelligent creator, I have no argument with you. We have no evidence but only unfounded hypotheses for the way the first cell was created and the theory of an intelligent creator is as legitimate (and lacking in evidence) as all other theories.
2) I also agree with you that there is no scientific proof of the existence of the Creator and this was not my intention, of course I do not expect such proof. What I ask is that you go a few steps further with the above theory and try to answer, for example, a simple question: Is creation ongoing today or was it a one-time thing?
If it was a one-off, how do new species appear today? For example, the same E coli bacteria that appeared last year in Germany? Is it not in an evolutionary process?
If creation continues today, where are the laboratories? In another dimension? in the sky? And how is it that in the laboratory we see evolutionary processes against the poor?
Who knows
Did he also give me wisdom and knowledge, to the same extent as yours?
to R.H
It is clear that evolution stands for much more than fossil findings, but I am referring to the issue of human origin and in particular to the reconstruction of bones such as Lucy, which is the most complete skeleton found so far. One and only skeleton. A skeleton that apparently belonged to some other type of extinct monkey, or even to a human:
How can anything be restored from broken, twisted and withered bones...
When paleontologists find a skull, and build a "primitive man" from it, do we know that all other humans looked like this? Take for example the first Neanderthal man found. At first he was presented as a bent creature resembling a monkey. After that it was found that the remains were a deformed person, and suffered from arthritis!
Regarding evidence of a creator,
I repeat again:
There is no scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, because otherwise there would be no faith and faith is not science, on the other hand, the Creator of the world has given you the tools to recognize Him: He has given you wisdom, understanding, and common sense, understanding you use wisdom, which is the knowledge you have gained in your life, and understanding has the ability to draw conclusions and logical analysis with its help You know the Creator, which is the highest level called knowledge: "Know the Creator" When you reach the level of knowledge, you are literally connected to Him, as it is said, "And a man knew Eve" You are truly connected to the Creator, therefore Chabad = wisdom, knowledge and knowledge
The knower + the questioner
External imagination is what the 19th century is…. Today there are much more sophisticated technologies - for example genome sequencing
https://www.hayadan.org.il/israeli-point-in-chimp-genome-sequencing-020905/
the knower + the questioner,
You say: "Medical treatment is an empirical science in which an experiment has already been carried out and results have been observed with the help of which it is possible to conclude whether the operation is worthwhile or not depending on the health condition of the person being operated on. In contrast, the reconstruction of fossils and bones is only a hypothesis, therefore reconstruction is not an empirical science."
Do you think evolution is based only on the findings in fossils? If that were the case there would be no argument. Evolution was a weak theory that required many proofs. But as one very responsive person told you, modern medicine, and I would add, molecular biology, genetic engineering, modern agriculture, all rely on evolution. Their successes testify about a thousand witnesses to the correctness of the assumptions underlying the theory.
What evidence do you think there is for the theory of an intelligent creator? Why does xianghua avoid any discussion of the nature and attributes of the Creator? Would you be willing to discuss this? And I don't mean views, feelings, gut feelings, but only experiments, thought experiments and observations.
the one who knows…
I tend to believe, when I am convinced with the help of findings and research and of course by sight.
Therefore I do not believe that there is a spiritual or mental component in the organism or in any other place.
I believe that we are completely controlled by emotions, senses, and things that are ingrained in us.
But on the other hand I am open to the conviction that I was wrong, but not by stories and analyzes and conclusions
but by facts. By things that can be proven.
For one who responds well:
When you say that the science of evolution according to scientists like Dawkins is proven science, what do you mean?
that he proved that there is also an ancestor of man and monkey? I would appreciate it if you could show me such a proof of Dawkins because I have not seen any proof yet other than a ridiculous reconstruction.
The Spaghetti Monster issue is an extreme for the atheists' blind faith in any evolutionary statement that contradicts creation, such as a common origin for man and ape, even though it is a reconstruction of bones at the worst possible level,
You will gladly accept any evidence contradicting creationism just to bash the teachings of the believers, because of the hatred for the religious establishment and everything it represents.
To my father:
The Bible is written in a dry way and when we don't understand the message we always turn to the Sages that they were authorized to be the bearer of the Torah of Moses because otherwise we will not understand what is being said.
According to the sages' Midrashi - Chapter XNUMX describes a pre-universal divine spiritual reality (what God planned for creation), while Chapter XNUMX describes the realization of the world as described in the sequence of events.
It is possible to find a hint that "there was a prior planning", because before the creation of man in chapter XNUMX it is written "we will become a man", as the Sages explained that we will consult with the angels - so chapter XNUMX describes a pre-practical spiritual reality, chapter XNUMX is already an actual creation
And I would also add and ask which creation is this, assuming the biblical one, so is it the one in chapter XNUMX of Genesis or the one in chapter XNUMX? They were written by different authors and their content is different (for example the creation of Adam from the rib of Eve in one version and male and female created them in the other version) and more.
To know + and to ask
As mentioned, the science of evolution according to scientists like Dawkins is a proven science, and as mentioned, I can refer you to it, but it does not change the argument: evolution, like medicine, like mathematics, and like chemistry, is a science that requires expertise, and not everyone who has read articles in Maariv about evolution is an expert, therefore, when I don't know something, I'm using an expert.
And that's exactly the point about science: evolution doesn't claim anything about the spaghetti monster but only claims about things it can prove and hypothesizes what it can't yet prove.
You don't have to accept anything but if you want to make a scientific argument or refute one, scientific papers are the way to do it.
Science is not objective about creation? I don't understand what that means. There are several theories and the best among them right now is the big bang
I'm glad we both agree that there is no proof of a creator
To Ernest:
"In my opinion, today we already have enough facts and proofs no less than those that teach about evolution, that it is an automatic mechanism"
Do you mean the natural instinct or a spiritual quality that is rooted in the CORE of every person
It is self-evident that each person has a different degree of spirituality, from an atheist, which is 0 spirituality, to a believer, where there are different degrees of spirituality that cause a relationship between him and the Creator.
For one who responds well:
Medical treatment is an empirical science in which an experiment has already been carried out and results have been observed with the help of which it is possible to conclude whether the operation is worthwhile or not depending on the health condition of the operated on, on the other hand the reconstruction of fossils and bones is only a hypothesis therefore reconstruction is not an empirical science, otherwise evolution could equally claim the existence of A flying spaghetti monster and we have to believe that, because according to your claim the entire branch of medicine is based on the theory of evolution and therefore I have to accept every guess and statement of someone who is defined as an evolutionary scientist in the world of science, when I know that science is not so objective about creation.
And again there is no proof of the existence of a Creator, because otherwise there would be no faith and faith is not science, on the other hand, the Creator of the world gave you the tools to recognize Him: He gave you wisdom, understanding and common sense. You understand that you use wisdom, which is the knowledge you have gained in your life, and your understanding has the ability to draw conclusions and logical analysis with its help. You know the Creator, which is the highest level called knowledge: "Know the Creator" When you reach the level of knowledge, you are literally connected to Him, as it is said, "And a man knew Eve" You are truly connected to the Creator, therefore Chabad = wisdom, knowledge and knowledge
He also gave you the right to choose to use these tools incorrectly and to be an atheist, but this is the right to choose that was not denied to man.
For the knower + the questioner
Absolutely ridiculous, isn't it, when you need medical treatment, do you research and perform the surgery on yourself? Nonsense, you're going to the surgeon.
Why do you allow yourself to read a few articles and call yourself an expert in the field (accept my apologies if you are an expert in the field but then you surely know that this is not the place to refute evolution)?
Of course I consult with experts in the field and evolution is a specialty just like medicine is a specialty. To think otherwise is ignorance.
Of course, the burden of proving the truth of evolution is on science and according to Professor Richard Dawkins, the theory of evolution is a fait accompli (and I can direct you to that) and yet I remind you that in science (perhaps except for mathematics), there is never proof of the correctness of the theory. At most one can argue about a physical theory that is strong enough to predict, repeat enough to explain results, strong enough to explain the past. Tomorrow, quantum mechanics can be disproved (although it will still be possible to use it to make computers) and that means it is only strong in a certain range of values of sizes and speeds but we have found a limit where it collapses
In any case and to the same extent, the duty of proving the existence of a creator is on you
point
If they reveal the whole mechanism that causes a cat to court a cat, a bird to build a nest, a chick to kill its brother.
For a cuckoo to lay eggs in the crow's nest, for a sparrow to act as if it is injured and hundreds of other complex actions that creatures do in nature, without previous learning or sight.
We will be able to better understand the interesting relationship between a leader and a follower. And between a believer and the object of his faith.
It is possible, as I mentioned before, that the source and/or the reason for this behavior is completely automatic
Same as those behaviors I mentioned above.
In my opinion, today we already have enough facts and proofs no less than those that teach about evolution, that it is an automatic mechanism. It exists in all of us, like other traits, but the doses differ from person to person..
If my father does not answer, it means that he does not believe it, it is possible that in light of his many preoccupations with persuasion and the struggle of his responses, he thinks that the very fact that a person believes in a "blind" way is due to a problem with him, in the intellectual or mental field.
Fati believes in everything, what a genius sentence.
For one who responds well:
Unlike you, I don't call people to confront each other in a scientific arena, and when they talk about a field I'm not familiar with, I inquire and ask, as in the above case,
To my father:
You claim that this mechanism is called natural selection and directs me to read a book by Ab Kers
This is exactly what xianghua claimed
I do not claim that there is no evolution, as far as I'm concerned, it's just a name that can also describe creation, what I'm claiming is that evolution did not provide enough convincing evidence about a person/ancestor common to man and ape and here the burden of proof is on you!!
This mechanism is called natural selection. And by the way, the next time you write that there is natural selection but no evolution, you should know that the full name of Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection"
R.H
What I understood from reading and conversations:
As much as a person's faith is stronger (and it doesn't matter what he believes) so too:
He is further away from reality
More willing to sacrifice himself for his faith
more under the control of a leader
Less subject to persuasion and contrary influences
If this is true, then what is the point of the whole discussion?
I think I gave a fight and I'm not trying to kick anyone out of the post for lack of knowledge but I certainly don't pretend to know what I don't know and I call on those who do to give a point fight even though there really isn't a fight, my side won a long time ago. Sorry. In any case, this is exactly my point: not to abandon the arena to pseudo-intellectuals in order not to lose the youth who grew up in a country that does not teach evolution.
to my father,
You write: "The mechanism that turns a monkey into a man..." As you tested and studied this mechanism,
Could you send me a photo like this of the mechanism that turns the monkey into a man?
Including all the intermediate steps? From being a monkey to being human?
What is the name of this mechanism? that turned a monkey into a man? can he make me coffee Or turn the dog into a cat?
The mechanism that turns a monkey into a human is exactly the same mechanism that changes bacterial cells to resist antibiotics. The mechanism of natural selection and those who claim that there is natural selection but no evolution simply do not know what they are talking about, it is like I say there are shekels but there is no such thing as money.
For one who responds well:
You do respond well by trying to kick xianghua off the POST, because you don't have the tools to deal with him and you yourself are proud of being a layman in evolution, he explains to you basic concepts in matters of evolution such as your assumption that drug development necessarily indicates the truth of evolution, but that has nothing to do with it Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor but the mechanism of natural selection and for that you don't need to write on scientific POST sites but come with basic knowledge of evolution, what's more this site is considered a science site and there are also people here who know how to respond to it so maybe you can kick them out too?
But as soon as you have the tools, you always repeat the same mantras: appeal to authority and a mechanism to eliminate nonsense
Common Give me a break and try to give a FIGHT and not be a broken record...
Ernest,
Do not know. But I guess you have some explanation on the subject, don't you?
R. H.,
Another version of "Istra Balgina Kish Kish Kriya" reads: "Like the sound of the pots under the pot, so is the wear of the fool".
Sirs or Isars are coins of small value [copper, not gold] stamped with a star [Istra], Sir is a gin, and a play on words that may give us some indication of the time of writing of a book attributed to the Jewish "Buddha".
The new,
Is it allowed to answer only a part?
R. H
Question, why are you unable to convince her or even arouse any doubt among a believer
xianghua,
"Will and faith" is only there on the side that ignores experimental observations and facts because they are contrary to what he heard from his parents and his gut feeling.
Maybe my memory is short but I really don't remember exactly which claims of yours failed to refute?
Ah! Do you perhaps mean a fish that is more like humans than fish? Or that the erv transposon passes once in a billion years? Or that 2 mutations happen in a billion years? Or that resistance to antibiotics is not created by mutations every day in thousands of laboratories in the world? Or maybe actually to the claim that thousands of biologists who deny evolution signed a petition on the subject??
Ola said: Hino Damri Inshi: Istira Balgina Kish Kish Kriya" (Babili Talmud, treatise Baba Metzia, page XNUMX, page XNUMX)
The new,
6. I don't believe there are humans on other planets, life yes, Adam no.
New
From the Central Bureau of Statistics
xianghua:
You are welcome to make as many claims as you want, but it is irrelevant because what is the point of making claims on the science website and concluding that if people have not contradicted you, then evolution is not true? Apply to a scientific journal, publish an article and confront scientists. I accept science as a nonsense elimination mechanism that doesn't hesitate to contradict Newton's theory and even understood that relativity and quantum mechanics are not completely complete. The fact that dozens of national academies in the world accept the theory of evolution is enough for me, since science has countless successes and is the only tool that has proven itself time and time again. Religion on the other hand, especially in the last 500 years, only got in the way
To be informed and asked:
I repeat again: only for religious people an appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy and as mentioned, I don't care and I don't need to care for anyone what Einstein believed in this matter. What is important is what he proved and what he contributed to physics. Newton was a genius of the impossible kind who also believed in alchemy, so what? So we all believe in alchemy? No. We will accept what he proved (for his time), we will try to build and engineer things based on his teachings regardless of the fact that he also believed in alchemy. So I conclude, because it probably wasn't clear enough: for Einstein to conclude for himself what he wants, everything he didn't prove, is worth nothing. Anything he didn't bring some kind of evidence to, is certainly worth nothing and it is precisely in this category that these ridiculous quotes fall. Since you for some reason think what he thought, I challenge you to find them in the original language as well as continue to investigate and see his direct reference to the lies told in his name. As I said, it doesn't matter.
What is amusing is the fact that you are willing to accept only part of his words and regret the part that you are not comfortable with.
Regarding the acceptance of a creator: I am an atheist as mentioned because I cannot find a single good evidence for accepting a religious God. Since I have no way to disprove a master planner, I also don't try but observe how science makes one such redundant, or at least reduces to almost zero its ability to influence and invites you to watch the lecture of Professor Lawrence Krauss: universe out of nothing:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
How dry are you .... Cooperate, I am very intrigued as to whether we will be able to reach new insights.
The 2012 knowledge test
Please cooperate.
1. Do you think there is a God who created everything? Necrosis briefly.
2. Do you think the big bang happened? If so, briefly describe how it was created.
3. Is the reality spread before our eyes and senses real?
4. Do you believe in evolution or know for sure that it exists?
5. Do you believe that parallel dimensions exist in reality? Answered briefly
6. Do you believe that humans exist on other planets in the universe?
7. If you were God, how would you create the world? Here you can go wild and answer as you imagine...
Please cooperate and maybe together we will reach new insights and discoveries
Thank you.
Father, please deal with the matter...don't delete the message
Ernst, your claims to my father are similar to my claims to Michael (Rothschild) a long time ago.
He would methodically answer every question and difficulty that would be difficult for all kinds of believers.
my father
If you try so hard to prove with the help of facts and findings and explanations, to the believer, that he is wrong,
This means that maybe you think that faith is built and supported on the basis of thinking..
I hope that one day you will accept my opinion that faith mainly comes to meet a certain need.
And it gets stronger or weaker according to the strength of that need, regardless of thinking.
The "need" in my opinion was built and strengthened during that evolution and according to its rules, in individuals who lived in governed groups..
my father
If a person like you thinks
RH and one who responds well
R.H., we have already thoroughly discussed the above discussions. Anyone who wants is invited to look at the post "Evolution or in evolution", where I made many claims that the supporters of evolution (including biologists) have not been able to refute, despite their will and belief.
"It takes a little more Neza to knock down one of the most solid and closed theories known to man." mantra. You know very well that you have never presented a single proof of evolution here.
to one who responds well,
"My side deals with disprovable theories and in fact science is the only mechanism we have to eliminate nonsense. Sometimes it takes time and sometimes it takes a lot of time, but in the end the nonsense is revealed." - Very true. We will wait and see.
Meanwhile, medicines are developed on the basis of the science of evolution and without the science of evolution, there is no sense in the science of biology.
You are welcome to read" - not exactly. Medicines are developed based on the principle of natural selection. This has nothing to do with the claim of common descent. it's obvious.
"Bacterial resistance is achieved from a simple mutation on the attacked site and not from the formation of new proteins, but as far as I know, mutation is exactly the way Darwinian evolution works" - not exactly. There is a difference between changing an existing system and creating a new system. Think of a (theoretical) replicating car subject to natural selection. Do you think, through occasional changes and selection pressures, it will eventually become an airplane?
My father, in Judaism the prohibition is to marry the gentiles. And of course they must not be killed.
If it is the same god, then why does every religion think that he is asking it to kill the members of different religions?
Einstein was certainly not an atheist.
To my father:
The reality where there are two omnipotent gods is logically impossible because if one omnipotent god can limit the other omnipotent god then both of them are not omnipotent, they are not God (since the meaning of the word God is "the possessor of all powers"). Logically, one must be the creator and the other, if anything, his messenger, an angel for example who is less than him in his powers and limited to him. Therefore there can only be one God, one Almighty.
To the philosophers among us can be added: The nature of two beings is that there are differences, place and time between them. It is clear to us that the Creator, who created the big bang, is not matter and has no time. And if he is not material, he can not be two. Because two must be separated from each other by force and place. And if there were two G-ds, then where does one begin and where does the other end? It is necessary that philosophically the Creator is one and infinite, because if he were two he would have to be material and bodily.
God has no creator. Because G-d is the creator of the process of "creator and creature"/"born and begets", he himself does not belong to the process he created. The very fact that God created gravity does not mean that God Himself is subject to it.
to know + the questioner. And I ask, why is it so hard to accept the flying spaghetti monster, and the invisible pink unicorn? And if God, of what religion? After all, your God and the God of the Discovery Institute are not similar in many ways. Which one to choose?
To one who responds well:
I brought the example of Einstein because Einstein was not a stupid person. He was one of the greatest scientists the world has known, so his opinion is considered and you can be impressed by it.
From Einstein's words, we see that the conclusion was clear to Einstein: nature is not random and chaotic, it is planned and the fruit of thought. Creation does not work
By itself as a game of dice, the Creator leads and controls creation at every moment in planning and thought.
"My religion consists of submissive adoration for the unlimited supreme spirit, which reveals itself in the most insignificant details, which we are able to grasp in our fragile and weak minds. This deep conviction in the presence of a higher intelligent power, revealed in a universe that cannot be understood, is my God-idea" (ibid., p. 142, "New York Times", April 19, 1955)
What is not clear??
Einstein deduced the existence of a creator from observing the order, harmony and symmetry of the universe - a creator with infinite intelligence, which he admired as a scientist.
Although he did not understand that the Creator has a purpose in creation, and that planning is not done without a purpose. Unfortunately, not everyone has seen and understood that God gave the Torah to the people of Israel and is interested in the actions of the people He created.
Why is it difficult to accept a Creator????
The entire archive of the site by month can be found in the "site map" link. You are invited to conduct a study and share its results. For this you will have to read about 200 articles from the last month and from the random month in history.
I have already refuted the claim that all the articles deal with skepticism - this is 5% of the articles, and unfortunately there is no choice, as long as people believe in nonsense and impose this nonsense and their beliefs on others with violence, someone has to do the dirty work and refute them.
Astronomical events such as eclipses are an excellent way to attract a wide audience here, especially children who will be convinced that it is fun to learn science.
I come here once a month, and each time I find two types of articles:
1. Astronomical phenomena - like Venus yesterday - that make our hearts beat like we did in the Middle Ages
2. Articles about "creationism" with a very clear agenda.
Too bad!
I don't know if it is the lack of scientific achievements in recent years.
I remember the site being much more interesting a few years ago.
I doubt if Einstein believed that God is the creator and animator of man, at least from what he wrote
https://www.hayadan.org.il/askeinstein-010900/
In addition, he did not say G-d but Mount Goth.
to know:
So I'm glad you agree with me that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God but in Spinoza's. Even if it was disproved later (not that I see how it can be disproved). Anyway, I repeat, why does it matter what he believed? What he proved is important and that's it.
to xianghua
I have no idea about the theory of evolution (absolute layman) and therefore I have no idea how sensational the conclusions of the article you referred to are (if there is evolution here, I would be happy to clarify) and if the article has been peer reviewed and is considered correct and conclusive, then scientists have a lot of work to do, what fun! If the situation were the other way around it would be worrying.
By the way, who said that tomorrow we won't discover another mechanism that reduces this huge number and who said that coincidence is not a good enough answer?
My side admits it knows very little and is proud of it. This is exactly the reason why people become scientists and researchers (despite the poor salaries in Israel).
My side deals with disprovable theories and in fact science is the only mechanism we have to eliminate nonsense. Sometimes it takes time and sometimes it takes a lot of time, but in the end the nonsense is revealed.
Who cares if evolution is disproved and another mechanism is discovered (just as the Newtonian Torah was disproved)? Meanwhile, medicines are developed based on the science of evolution and without the science of evolution, there is no sense in the science of biology.
Feel free to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Sick-Darwinian/dp/0679746749
You wrote: Bacterial resistance is achieved from a simple mutation on the attacked site and not from the formation of new proteins, but as far as I know, mutation is exactly the way Darwinian evolution works (compared to Amharic evolution). As written, I am not an evolution expert and I invite the experts here to comment.
In addition, you are welcome to read:
http://atheistatlarge.org/2012/01/how-do-we-know-evolution-really-happens/
The other side claims to know the reason for everything. The other side who claims to have all the answers, is therefore the automatic loser in any argument. The other side once claimed that the Torah is completely accurate, while today there are many rabbis and Christian clerics who claim that the Torah cannot be taken simply because science has completely disproved the story of creation. So what do the religious people do, who once claimed that everything was terribly simple, but now everything turns out to be terribly complex (the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, super symmetry, string theory...)? They reverse the argument and say well, look how complex the world is and therefore there must be a master planner. An explanation that is this kind of screw (from Star Trek) that assimilates every solution that science produces. It is clear that such an argument cannot be defeated, but we will remember what Professor Bertrand Russell said that precisely an argument that cannot be refuted is an unscientific argument.
Precisely because of xianghua's claims there is a need for panels open to the public where the experts can be asked questions. The arena is promiscuous to Amnon Yitzchak and pseudo-intellectuals who will easily embarrass the non-expert but crash in front of the expert
To one who responds well:
Einstein claimed and quoted:
I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings" (ibid., p. 134).
"I cannot understand the idea of a personal God, who directly influences the actions of human beings..." (ibid., p. 133).
And to remind you:
Spinoza was a Jewish philosopher who claimed that God is nature, that is, all of nature is the Creator, who carries out creation in planning and legality. He claimed that God is not interested in man and His actions, even though He sustains and sustains Him. Spinoza's teachings are refuted both scientifically and logically. Science has proved that our reality has never been, but has been created since the Big Bang. That is to say, the whole nature was created from there and was not always, which proves that God can not be nature, but only creator of nature and living nature.
xianghua,
After the fish that is similar to people, 2 mutations in a billion years, macro and micro and the other nonsense you have thrown here you have a lot of audacity to claim "all the thousands of experiments that tried to prove the theory were a resounding failure".
After all, we both, and now Mark and others also know that you have no idea, so instead of talking nonsense over and over again, please, go back and study and come a little more prepared. It takes a little more Neza to knock down one of the most solid and closed theories known to man.
By the way, have you already built your thesis about the qualities of your intelligent creator? After all, it is also clear to everyone that you have no positive evidence, no guess, no rebuttal experiment, nada, a house of cards based on a gut feeling that comes from education, where you grew up and what you want to believe and not from the dry facts.
Nkonda, I'm glad you wrote that you think I have no idea what I'm talking about. That's how *I* know you have no idea what I'm talking about.
xianghua I'm glad you're trying to write about biology.
This way you can see that you have no idea what you are talking about.
to know:
I'm tired of being told about Einstein as if it mattered what he believed or not. Only for religious people does the above data matter in any way because for them an appeal to authority (ad vercondiam) is not considered a logical fallacy.
Still, Einstein did not believe in a creator but in Spinoza's God, which is actually nature, but as mentioned, I don't really care what he believed or not, what he proved is important.
Regarding the rambling of what was known in the sources: the sources contain so much nonsense that occasionally something is true. As usual, believers ignore all the nonsense written in the sources (the creation story itself has so many mistakes) and in order not to get into cognitive dissonance, they say that what is wrong is an allegorical story and the story should not be taken as factual truth. When science discovers something and a cabalist jumps in and claims that the above was already known, he risks that the next day, science will contradict what is known today. What would you say if tomorrow the big bang theory was disproved?
Beyond that, all these claims that everything was already known are beautiful in such a childish way, but no medicine, no invention and no Torah was created as a result of this knowledge, only ignorance.
Mark, I don't think you understand. The above study tested how often a functional sequence would appear. Therefore, if you want to switch from an existing protein to another protein with a different activity, you will have to believe that in a space of over 100^20 sequences each functional sequence is next to each other. And in fact, this claim is hidden from the facts on the ground. The protein sequences (as well as their spatial structures) are very different from each other in many cases. That is, the sequence space is well distributed among all the proteins. A good example is the pair of proteins globin and myoglobin. Despite their almost identical function (oxygen transfer) they differ in close to 70% of their sequence. This means they are not homologous.
xianghua
You really want to make our lives so easy with these examples, even the Discovery Institute won't consider taking you with the nonsense you offer.
Why do you assume from the beginning that new proteins need to be created from completely "original" sequences in order to provide a solution
Somehow, the whole idea and greatness of DNA is that DNA is a sort of "toolbox" (a sort of box of Lego pieces) from which all kinds of proteins can be organized, but sometimes a single point mutation is enough to change (sometimes dramatically) functionality of existing protein, in addition you do not take into account the amount and speed at which bacteria multiply, for them to undergo evolution is a matter of a few generations.
As for the predictions, this is a hypothesis, what preceded what, an increase in brain volume before walking upright or vice versa (of the human species that preceded Homo Sapiens), this is another hypothesis, when did Homo Sapiens arrive in the Americas or Australia?
If you are really interested I believe you will be able to find the answers to this.
It is very clear according to the things you propose, that you do not have extensive knowledge of biology (especially molecular)
That's why you are "caught small" as the expression says, so leave it is not your arena to say what you propose,
It would have been better if you had started with these examples and then at least the people would have explained to you where you are wrong
But the "proof" you brought about the number of "biologists" who doubt evolution is enough to conclude
That the creationists filled your head with nonsense, if I had gone through this I would never have been able to study and certainly not enjoy biology.
For one who responds well:
A deist is someone who recognizes the reality of a creator, but does not attribute it to religion, like Einstein for example.
Scientists have a professional problem to relate to the reality of the Creator and spirituality because they must bring the rational and the abstract into the equation, the absolute, science as an empirical science is based on measurements and observations, but not necessarily all the knowledge is there, therefore the two cannot be mixed.
In our ancient sources, the story of the Big Bang is described according to Kabbalah theory and many discoveries made by scientists were already known to our sages: such as gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity and more
Therefore, knowledge must be drawn from an infinite source of truth
to xianghua
I have no idea about the theory of evolution (total layman) and therefore I have no idea how sensational the conclusions of the article are (if there is evolution here, I would be happy to clarify) and if the article has been peer reviewed and is considered correct and conclusive, then the scientists have a lot of work to do, what fun! If the situation were the other way around it would be worrying.
By the way, who said that tomorrow we won't discover another mechanism that reduces this huge number and who said that coincidence is not a good enough answer?
My side admits it knows very little and is proud of it. This is exactly the reason why people become scientists and researchers (despite the poor salaries in Israel).
My side deals with disprovable theories and in fact science is the only mechanism we have to eliminate nonsense. Sometimes it takes time and sometimes it takes a lot of time, but in the end the nonsense is revealed.
Who cares if evolution is disproved and another mechanism is discovered (just as the Newtonian Torah was disproved)? Meanwhile, medicines are developed based on the science of evolution and without the science of evolution, there is no sense in the science of biology.
Feel free to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Sick-Darwinian/dp/0679746749
You wrote: Bacterial resistance is achieved from a simple mutation on the attacked site and not from the formation of new proteins, but as far as I know, mutation is exactly the way Darwinian evolution works (compared to Amharic evolution). As written, I am not an evolution expert and I invite the experts here to comment.
In addition, you are welcome to read:
http://atheistatlarge.org/2012/01/how-do-we-know-evolution-really-happens/
The other side claims to know the reason for everything. The other side who claims to have all the answers, is therefore the automatic loser in any argument. The other side once claimed that the Torah is completely accurate, while today there are many rabbis and Christian clerics who claim that the Torah cannot be taken simply because science has completely disproved the story of creation. So what do the religious people do, who once claimed that everything was terribly simple, but now everything turns out to be terribly complex (the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, super symmetry, string theory...)? They reverse the argument and say well, look how complex the world is and therefore there must be a master planner. An explanation that is this kind of screw (from Star Trek) that assimilates every solution that science produces. It is clear that such an argument cannot be defeated, but we will remember what Professor Bertrand Russell said that precisely an argument that cannot be refuted is an unscientific argument.
Precisely because of xianghua's claims there is a need for panels open to the public where the experts can be asked questions. The arena is promiscuous to Amnon Yitzchak and pseudo-intellectuals who will easily embarrass the non-expert but crash in front of the expert
To my father and one who responds well,
First, I'm glad you both agree that one piece of evidence is enough. Second, the situation in reality is the opposite - all the thousands of experiments that tried to prove the theory were a resounding failure (for example, Lenski's experiment). Bacterial resistance is achieved from a simple mutation on the attacked site and not from the formation of new proteins. Here's a peer-reviewed paper showing that only about one in 60^10 sequences results in a functional sequence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
By simple calculation it seems that evolution did not have even a trillionth of the time required. So how exactly do evolutionary scientists reconcile this with the theory?
Regarding the prophecies. It is true that a theory must offer predictions to prove or disprove it. But the theory of evolution has no testable prediction. If anyone knows of one, let us know.
Assumption, theory.
Along with the physical growth of the brain during evolution, there is a quantitative increase in skills, and not necessarily a qualitative improvement in existing skills,
An article describes that by and large one third of scientists do not believe in God but does not describe what the other two thirds do and this is exactly the difference between a theist and a deist
The article describes that in the social sciences, 30% pray and the rest do not. Only 20% of natural science scientists pray, does this mean that 80% are secular? It's hard to know
Wikipedia has much more information, and more up-to-date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics\
Where agnostics are at most a type of deist because the claim that there is a God does not mean that there is a religious God
In relation to science, although one view is enough to eliminate a theory, such a theory has not been presented regarding evolution. Not every sentence a scientist says becomes evidence. Evidence is admissible in science if it has undergone peer review, whether the contradicting experiment has been reproduced, how many citations the evidence article has received, etc. Such a view, which contradicts evolution does not exist.
Regarding the scientist you brought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
The response is awaiting approval.
Indeed, one refutation is enough to abandon the theory, and you will be surprised, in every experiment conducted, the scientists are looking for this refutation, if you count the number of biological laboratories around the world (which research all kinds of things, for example resistance of bacteria to antibiotics) and among them the laboratory of R.H. The scientists hypothesize according to the theory of evolution. In other words, in the 153 years since Darwin's book, billions of experiments have been done, and in all of them the predictions of the theory have been successfully met. It also received support from other sciences such as geology and even cosmology.
Einstein's theory was also condemned by dozens of German scientists as a Jewish theory and he himself said that dozens are not needed, one is enough to prove it.
All these experiments strengthen the theory of evolution. And again, you don't offer any alternative explanation, that's not how science works. If a certain explanation explains reality, one needs to find an especially strong explanation that will both explain it but also give predictions that can be quantified and an experiment designed with. Show me one creationist example of this.
post Scriptum. The fact that a person deals with some branch of the life sciences, and in his field he makes predictions according to the theory of evolution as a practice but does not believe in it, is his personal problem.
Seriously, what gives an advantage is 2 things: that there is someone who understands something and that the others listen to him.
The 2012 knowledge test
Please cooperate.
1. Do you think there is a God who created everything? Necrosis briefly.
2. Do you think the big bang happened? If so, briefly describe how it was created.
3. Is the reality spread before our eyes and senses real?
4. Do you believe in evolution or know for sure that it exists?
5. Do you believe that parallel dimensions exist in reality? Answered briefly
6. Do you believe that humans exist on other planets in the universe?
7. If you were God, how would you create the world? Here you can go wild and answer as you imagine...
Please cooperate and maybe together we will reach new insights and discoveries 🙂
Thank you.
Father, please deal with the matter...don't delete the message
Evolutionary theory is never in a bad state, it is open to changes and suggestions for new findings
Of any kind, it is also not perfect, this is not Torah. And whenever we find contradictory facts or findings
That way it will be corrected and improved, it won't be new, as long as the majority of supporters come, they don't do it out of necessity
to believe.
point,
The claim that all humans share a common genetic code can also be evidence of a common designer, not necessarily a common origin. And if this is the best evidence the theory can offer, the state of evolution is dire.
I do not believe in the creation story in the Torah,
This does not mean that I have more mental abilities than Danny (for example) who believes wholeheartedly that the Messiah is already coming.
But it may mean,
That Danny's need to be controlled to be led higher than mine.
,
point
You don't focus the answers a bit, I asked based on your words, give a simple answer, what gives an evolutionary advantage to the group the need to understand or the need to believe, either yes or no or maybe or don't know what you choose.
There is no need for so many findings and evidence, there is a single evidence that only thanks to it every reasonable person must say that all life started from one source, and that is, all life is based on the same genetic code!!!
The probability that the same genetic code would not have been created in an evolutionary way in each individual animal is literally 0.
xianghua stop brainstorming and spreading your lies here.
The theory of evolution has never been hidden. The fact that people find it difficult to understand and accept complex things does not mean that there is a contradiction. You let stupidity confuse you.
And as for the evolutionary part, the ability to predict is the one that underlies the development of intelligence, like the tiger is good at predicting the next moves of the deer, etc., etc. And it is clear that those who have a better ability to predict have a better ability to survive. And at the human level there have been huge leaps in this ability.
It seems to me that you are targeting the need for leadership, or the need to be controlled. This is what Freud meant when he spoke of a father figure. It has all kinds of interpretations and explanations.
Seriously, not so much.
Being disciplined is one of the ways to understanding. That is, there are those (everyone has it in different matters) for whom hearing something said or something written is enough to understand that what they heard is true.
By "understand" I mean to understand that this is what is true (what is called faith in your mouth).
Avi,
You probably mean this amusing video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
That unknown guy "forgot" some things on the way.
First, the guy referred to the initial list, which at the time numbered only about 100 scientists. Today the list stands at over 700 scientists with Ph.D.
Regarding the claims he makes there: 19 biologists didn't answer him back at all, so it's funny to claim he's only left with a biologist or two. Not to mention the question he addressed to them - "Do you believe in a common origin". which is not at all similar to what they signed - "the complexity of life". Did we say twists?
And as I said before, in science, one scientist with one piece of evidence is enough to disprove an entire theory. Indeed there is such evidence. So...who said there is no controversy?
Ernest,
In order to address the issue, it is necessary to define what is meant by "believing". Belief in someone watching from above is a trait derived from evolutionary development, and if you want I can explain to you what I mean. The religion attached to this belief is a cultural "meme" that was created during cultural development and is aided by this feature.
point
You claim, let's say a herd, where most individuals are curious who want to know, has the ability or chance
to serve more than in a herd, where most individuals are completely disciplined.
And so in your opinion the need to "understand" developed and increased during evolution because those who wanted to understand more survived longer
from those who wanted to understand less.
Did I understand you correctly?
I'll attach a link but in the evening, because I'm at the conference all day, and I don't have time to breathe.
Seriously, what is at the base is the need to understand and not the need to believe.
When there is a given that needs to be understood, it remains to ask what are the foundations on which everyone is willing to base their understanding, and these are the beliefs (we call those basic assumptions beliefs, but these are basic assumptions and nothing else).
For example, there is one for whom it is enough to know that there are atoms and that the whole world is made up of them. And it satisfies his need to understand. But there is someone else for whom this is not enough and then he will ask what the atom is made of. And so on.
The basic need is the need to understand that stems from the survival need to survive. Those who understand the world better will survive better. Of course, today it has reached dimensions far beyond direct survival.
Who checked the list?
Absolutely not, there was someone who checked the list and contacted people and it turns out that most of them are not biologists but all kinds of other professions including forest guards and the like. Among the biologists, some refused to sign their signature, because they claimed that they meant the democratic part of the claims and not the scientific part. There are two real biologists left who really believe in creation and both of them - amazingly enough - are employed at the same Christian university founded by the preacher Jerry Furwell.
This petition is one big scam. It's a shame that you are trying to mislead the surfers of the science site. Maybe you hope they will repent and become fundamentalist Christians.
The article describes that by and large a third of scientists do not believe in God but does not describe what the other two thirds do and this is exactly the difference between a theist and a deist
The article describes that in the social sciences, 30% pray and the rest do not. Only 20% of natural science scientists pray, does this mean that 80% are secular? It's hard to know
Wikipedia has much more information, and more up-to-date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics\
When agnostics are at best deists because claiming there is a God does not mean there is a religious God who cares whether you like guys or not.
In relation to science, although one view is enough to eliminate a theory, such a theory has not been presented regarding evolution. Not every sentence a scientist says becomes evidence. Evidence is admissible in science if it has undergone peer review, whether the contradicting experiment has been reproduced, how many citations the evidence article has received, etc. Such a view, which contradicts evolution does not exist.
Regarding the scientist you brought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
soup,
Here is the article about the survey:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/aug/14/20050814-115521-9143r/?page=1
and the relevant figure:
Physicists and biologists were the least spiritual — 41 percent in both groups said they did not believe in God
In other words, most biologists support intelligent creation, or at least do not rule it out. Pretty impressive I would say.
An evolutionary biologist who denies the theory of evolution is Richard Sternberg for example. This is an evolutionary biologist with an impressive past.
you said:
"The fact that biologists or evolutionary biologists do not rule out that the world was created in a planned way does not necessarily mean that they think that life was created in a specific way about 6000 years ago or 3.5 billion years ago" - very true. But it shows that scientists doubt that the world evolved through a natural process.
And one last thing, the opinion of the majority is irrelevant. In science what matters is the evidence. For that matter, one piece of evidence from one scientist is enough to disprove an entire theory.
I would advise Mr. Blizovsky and his ilk, instead of getting angry and stomping their feet, to actually listen to Ernst's words, which come from a place of curiosity and not of preaching. The human brain is complicated and rational thinking is indeed a certain part of it, but certainly not all of it. There is not one person whose thinking is 100 percent logical. So there is nothing to be surprised every time again in the face of expressions of emotions in people. For example, I tried to understand a certain phenomenon (in my life I broke my head and raised lettuce) of drivers in the middle of the summer with the window open and their hand outstretched as if challenging the logic of the offensive. What do you mean, I gave up. So people who don't believe in the theory of evolution? Let them be.
But beyond all this, let's not forget that science does not explain (and probably won't be able to soon) some very troubling difficulties such as the meaning of life, the meaning of the existence of the universe, what is the universe in general, etc., etc. So I and two or three other people like me live with this incomprehensibility, **contain** this fact and look to the science that will bring us a fraction of a step closer to the truth. We are also aware of the fact that we will die before (long before) all the questions are resolved.
But other people are not ready for this (or are not able) and they prefer the stories of creation / divinity / religions / sects, etc., etc., in order to be able to fall asleep at night. so what to do? We need to learn to **contain** the fact of these people's existence as well. It's called emotional intelligence.
I have already written before and again: there is no possibility and no need to contradict faith,
As it is impossible to deny a fact.
It doesn't matter what the believers believe, the fact/process will continue and take place,
Treating evolution as a theory leads to a lack of understanding and unnecessary debates,
Evolution is a fact/process just like gravity or fact
that our sphere revolves around the sun,
There are different and strange theories that try to explain facts,
The theories can be argued to support one and contradict another,
A debate about the existence or non-existence of gravity... is equal in value to a debate about whether the sun will rise tomorrow, so is a debate about the existence of the process called evolution,
Even if all the believers, rabbis, priests, and idiots of the world stand up and cry out there is no sun
The sun will continue to shine regardless of other beliefs or vanities,
This is how the process called evolution will continue.
Yigal
I do not understand you,
Do you agree that "to believe" is a need ingrained in us during evolution.
Mark, like you, I am waiting for such a list of biologists and just want to add two points:
A theist is a person who believes in a religious God, and an atheist is an anti-theist, that is, a deceiving religious God
A deist is a person who believes that there is a master planner (who, for example, created the universe with well-defined laws of physics) and this is a claim that science cannot disprove but is slowly making redundant. At this point I recommend watching the instructive lecture of Professor Lawrence Krauss regarding Universe out of nothing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Due to the fact that most people and even those with degrees (including the doctors among them) confuse deism with theism, these polls should be taken with a limited guarantee (but the bias in these polls can only exist in the interest of science in my opinion)
I am of course not innocent and I know very well that all those American Christians who talk about a planner are talking about the religious God, except that thanks to the separation between religion and the state, they must mask him, but the claim of deism exists regardless of these liars
I mean, Mark, I'm totally on your side about the distinction between 6000 years and 3.5 billion, etc.
My second point (at the risk of becoming a tireless troublemaker) is my call for public discussions between science and religion in a debate format and not to leave the public arena to Amnon Yitzchak. Is there no university worthy of its name in Israel that would undertake to hold such discussions?
Ernest,
Since belief in God and religion is illogical, there is no point in looking for logic behind it.
The "strength" of belief is derived in the individual, like all human traits, from the reaction of the relevant genetic base to the influence of the environment, which in the case of religion is extremely strong.
Not every natural feature that developed in an evolutionary way can or even should be "exploited for the benefit of humanity and its future" since it is a double-edged sword: in most cases what can be exploited for good can also be exploited for evil, for example: religion, government, nuclear energy and so on.
Happily 🙂
What is amazing is that those who believe in God do not at all perceive that the theory they believe in is much less logical and much more complex and complicated than the theory of evolution, according to them even a small bacterium could not form by itself naturally, but God is omnipotent? Sure and sure it is.
Why would such an amazingly complex and multi-talented being be created just like that by itself? (or will exist forever) How is it that people accept such nonsense and more speaking in the name of that entity?
דני
Well done, I wanted to show this exact video in the previous message, but I wanted to see some comments like the one from xianghua we'll see here before I send it to them.
xianghua probably means that 60% of doctors and not evolutionary biologists doubt evolution, and for the sake of doubt I challenge everyone here and you especially xianghua, give me the name of one "evolutionary biologist" who does not think that the evolutionary theory explains the biological facts that we know today and thinks that there is Another possibility for the formation of life on Earth, such as "intelligent design" can replace the theory in a better way.
The fact that biologists or evolutionary biologists do not rule out that the world was created in a planned way does not necessarily mean that they think that life was created in a specific way about 6000 years ago or 3.5 billion years ago if we want to be more precise and it was Yahweh and not the pretender (Jesus and others) that created us why because After several thousands/billions of years he realized (after many years of experience even though he is omniscient), he was tired of looking at sinful people/lightning and thunder and then decided to intervene and choose people/nations for certain purposes, enter the real estate business, write/dictate books that contradict this That and since then he disappeared, doesn't call, doesn't answer calls, etc.
Further to Mark's message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huSYSwLQ7Jg
(Click "CC" below to activate Hebrew translation subtitles)
Mark, there is a list of biologists who oppose evolution. Among them are even evolutionary biologists (believe it or not). Moreover, a survey published in 2005 showed that the majority of biologists actually do not rule out the claim that the world was created by a planner (close to 60% of biologists). Your claim that Prof. Bihi does not understand evolution is also puzzling. According to this line, there is no point in the opinion of most biologists. This is because most biologists do not deal with evolution at all. And from what I know Bihi actually understands the subject very well.
I read some of the talkbacks, and I realized that there is a (wrong) assumption here that says if someone has a degree in science then he is definitely a scientist, sorry to inform you but this is not the case, the number of scientists who are engaged in science who deny evolution tends to zero (also in the US), on the other hand There are people who have academic degrees and they make up the bulk of the "opponents" of the theory of evolution, the fact that Michael Behe is a biochemist who challenges the theory does not mean that he is an expert in matters of evolution and has sufficient knowledge to challenge the theory.
The number of biologists who challenge the theory is non-existent in my opinion (I would be happy to challenge anyone here to present to me a scientist dealing with biology who is not even an expert in his field who would disprove the theory).
The real problem regarding the acceptance of evolution as a valid science stems from a much bigger problem and that is the relationship between science and theology in the public, this is true for evolution and this is true for climate science, the same story, for the people of creation (it is not fair to put all religious believers in this box) there is a problem if the concept That the world we live in is not a stage for homo sapiens to have an intimate relationship with the "Creator", our entire existence is conditioned by the quality of the relationship between us and God and it is he who determines man's fate in the world and nature is a secondary thing that should not be taken too seriously.
Science is good enough to optimize our lives, but the description of the "real" reality is for theology, all the difficulties we encounter whether it is with the theory of evolution or whether it is with global warming is a derivative of the concept that the world was created in order to give us a platform and anything that contradicts this assumption you will run into a problem.
I would love to hear your comments
Yigal
If in the future it will be accepted that belief is an existential need embedded in us during evolution, we will be able to stop looking for some rational "logic" in what man believes or in the content of his belief.
It is possible that if this is the case, then the "strength" of faith in a person depends on and is measured mainly by factors,
One is the level of a leader's need to control and the other is the level of a person's need to be controlled.
When the two factors at high levels or bones meet, a crowd or a group or a people is obtained
Chief among them is a leader, who has a sense of power and tremendous abilities. Without any connection whatsoever with the conditions
Around them.
The question arises whether it is possible and how to use or take advantage of the same mechanism from nature, for the benefit of humanity and its future.
When you want to emphasize how faith still prevails over scientific logic, you always bring an example from the situation in the USA.
This point requires reference.
Many imagine the American nation as a dominant and wealthy sophisticated nation. It's true, but a dismal majority of its inhabitants, consists of quite obscure people.
Nevertheless, the USA's great advantage over Israel in this case is that, despite the religious beliefs of most of its citizens, they are careful not to mix the economy with the church and separate the administration of the state from the administration of faith.
A combination of running a country with a combination of clerics is what is truly frightening. See for example Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel.
Therefore, even if a similar survey reveals that more Israelis believe that man evolved without God's intervention, our situation is no better.
Eran-Set is right - the belief in higher powers is probably derived from evolutionary processes. I have previously written my opinion on the subject, and the gist of it is: there is a great advantage in regulating the behavior of members of the group by non-violent means. If the 'meme' known as a superior force dominates fear and with its help an order is created, everyone in the group benefits and as a result the feature that allows the members of the group to cooperate receives a survival advantage (and this is not meant to select groups). The 'mem' known as religion, which is different from the 'mem' known as God, but easily cooperates with him and connects with him, provides an organization that leverages the abilities of God to advantages for himself and the group. It is likely that such advantages will perpetuate themselves in the way of a strong desire to accept faith and religion among the members of the group.
There is much more to expand.
point
You didn't read everything, I wrote "I don't think it's true"
By the rest of your words, you justify what I said that "faith" does not matter what, how and when it is a trait or a need or something else," which we witness that it often brings an individual or a group or even a nation to self-sacrifice and total enslavement" to a leader, to a system, to a party, to a group Football and more.
All that is left for the seeker of research and science is to wonder what is its origin or what is its cause, for example, how is it that there is a completely blind faith in a political, military or spiritual leader, without any connection to the facts and yet the faith in him is strong, and often total.
According to evolutionists, the giraffe did not get a long neck because it struggled to get a long neck. The giraffe didn't get a long neck because it needed a long neck.
The giraffe got a long neck just like that, by chance, because the genes replicated poorly, and some genes produced the giraffe with a slightly longer neck than its peers.
That is, all the organs and all the systems in nature were created by chance. Out of an almost endless variety of different mistakes, of which there were also some "successful" ones in their opinion. This is how all the animals and man were created according to their method.
For those who did not understand, we will say it again -
Out of the billions of possible combinations, the one that will add fins to a mammal in the water or simulated eyes on the back of a caterpillar will happen by chance.
The natural selection argument is nothing more than an illusion of design. The adherents of the theory have made natural selection and evolution purposeful, to God!
Ernest,
You wrote that if my claim is correct then:
"Those who believe in evolution supposedly have a higher mental capacity than those who believe in creation."
That's not true at all.
Most of those who believe in evolution do so for the same reason religious people believe in their religion, because they were told to.
Most of the believers in evolution have no idea how evolution happens, except for the words DNA mutations and a few other words they have memorized, they have no idea how it works.
Proofreading done. Thanks
As for the fact that the religious are not all of one piece, we know, but as was said, not all the ultra-orthodox should suffer because of the behavior of the 99.99% that impose themselves on the secular.
The people
I tried to drag the discussion to the topic of faith, not what one believes, and in this kind of discussion, it doesn't help if I say that I am not
Believes in creation stories.
We will try to understand what is this strange phenomenon of faith in a leader, in a system, in a party, in a football team.
And even more strange and incomprehensible is that the same trait is so strong that we witness that it often brings an individual or a group or even a people to the point of self-sacrifice and total enslavement.
In my opinion, "faith" has deep evolutionary roots. But the discussion is open, there must be people who disagree with me, I would love to hear other views even if they are contradictory.
The article needs urgent proofreading. "Such surveys provide more value if they add a few more options in this direction and don't try to be complex so as not to offend anyone" seems to have been taken from Google Translate
By the way, you should know that not all religious think that the book of Genesis is literal. See the entry "Judaism's relation to the theory of evolution" in Wikipedia.
In particular, Rabbi Kook, who wrote about it many times, magnified this. (By the way, he writes that at the time it was clear to everyone that the Genesis chapter is all hints of spiritual matters and is not as simple as that. Precisely at the time the problem was conceptual-theological, how to reconcile the idea that man evolved from inferior forms).
An example quote (my comments in parentheses) "There is no stopping the interpretation of the parashat Ela Toldut HaShem Wa Eretz (the story of the creation of man in the Book of Genesis), which folds into its proximity the worlds of millions of years, until a person comes to some realization that he is already different from all of God, and by what A vision seems to him that it is necessary to establish a family life with constancy and nobility of spirit, by a special woman who will call him more than his father and mother, the natural owners of the family. The hibernation can be visionary (not real but conceptual), and it will also fold for a period of time, until the idea of bone from myself and flesh from my flesh is cooked."
My wife studies biology at one of the more dossian institutions of religious Zionism (Jerusalem College), where they teach evolution.
The situation in the USA is quite good, a century ago 96% of the American people believed in creation, the reason why half of Americans still believe in creation is simple, they are not interested, what interests them is football, beer and gossip about movie stars, science requires study and understanding, for the most part my sons The person has no desire to deal with it.
From the tiny percentages of those who do not believe in God, it is possible to point out that those who believe in evolution are actually not from the normal, the so-called abnormal, and this despite the fact that the missing link was found in 'the beautiful and the geek'
The gatekeeper, you are absolutely right, but what I am interested in is helping the youth and the public to accept the facts and in this arena, the facts are losing for the tenth century and that is sad. It is doubly sad in a country that aspires to be a progressive and leading country. Advancement in scientific fields will not occur here if the public arena is abandoned. In this sense, Rabbi Oman Boris Gelfand has done a service to the public many times more than any minister of education in recent years
"The people",
In principle, both theories can be refuted, and therefore both meet the standard of a scientific theory. Or alternatively - both cannot be refuted. Depends on how you look at it. For example, if a fossil is found out of place (which has happened hundreds of times) the evolutionists will claim that it must have infiltrated there somehow. On the other hand, regarding the age of the earth, the supporters of the young world claim that the tests may not be reliable, or that in the past the decay rate was different, so it is still possible that the world is only thousands of years old. By the way, it is also not true that evolution is a proven theory. Just a guess. As I have shown here in discussions many times (in the post "evolution or in evolution" for example).
Gentlemen of the debaters, there is a possibility that great scientists are also smart and talented
They will be struck with a momentary stupor that will be caused by a train of thought in the environment, a hidden fear, or anything
Another historical event, it is also possible that there are smart scientists who proclaim creationism
Out of ulterior motives and not momentary stupidity,
The belief that man is a superior and chosen being ruled the world for thousands of years
Therefore, it should not be surprising that in societies and populations on which science has not yet arrived
The religious and creationist belief dominates,
As for the Americans and the Israelis, it turns out that stupidity is the dominant feature,
Stupidity leads to fear of everything that is unknown, familiar and simple,
The greatness of Amnon Yitzhak and his ilk is in their ability to lead stupidity and fear
to their desired paths,
It is easier and simpler for the common idiot to accept things from someone in authority when
He frees the coward from responsibility for his actions and the idiot from the need to think.
Evolution is a factual process, creationism is a belief
Belief cannot be compared to fact just as a negative cannot be proven.
Father, thank you for your attention. That's exactly why Christopher Hitchens was such an amazing man: beyond his courage, there was no argument that he couldn't, even though he wasn't a scientist.
The constellation of such a debate will include a moderator and the conversation will be between the two conversationalists according to the moderator's questions and the audience (as is customary in such discussions) is allowed to ask questions in an orderly manner.
I definitely recommend watching the debates with Christopher Hitchens. They train.
Is there no such person in Israel who can pick up the gauntlet?
Ernest,
I don't understand your argument, I would appreciate it if you could explain your intention to me again.
Anyway, I have no idea if this is what you meant, but were you trying to posit creationism and evolution as scientific theories?
Have you tried to claim that they have the same validity, so to speak, because it is impossible to know which one is correct and you need to check?
If so, then there is a difference,
Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists who deal with biology, it is confirmed time and time again in studies. (It obviously enjoys the support of most scientists regardless of their "school", it is simply the most relevant).
Creationism is not a scientific theory (the world was created 6000-10000-100000 years ago or any other random number?) and does not rely on the scientific method (how can it be disproved, for example...).
In any case, I assume that this is not what you claimed and that it all stems from my misunderstanding...
Unfortunately, I personally am not strong with Amnon Yitzhak, my ability to express myself is better in writing than orally. What's more, the preachers have an (incorrect) answer, but they answer every topic for everything in a flash, on the other hand, a scientist has to rely on sources, and certainly doesn't remember all the topics by heart (when it comes to facts, you have to know them, not make them up ad hoc as Amnon does Isaac).
Let's assume you are right, but if you are like me a follower or believer in science and its way. you are "committed"
By way of research, proof, analysis and facts.
Well, there are facts in the article. 46%. Another well-known fact is that people switch from one faith to another "with a whole heart"
And another fact, science and its environment do not have the tools at this moment to identify certain characteristics in a person that cause it
to believe in evolution or creation. When two particles are completely identical according to the measuring tools we have
will spread energy in different amounts, it will be acceptable to you that we try to find the cause of this.
There are countless leading scientists and artists who have always believed in creation. In my opinion it is one of the strangest phenomena in nature, but on the other hand I am aware and accept that it is indeed a phenomenon that exists and it is also mass. All that remains is for us to try to understand why, how and from what this thing is. faith
.
Friends, the situation in the USA is difficult, but at least there people are trying to do something about it and there is a lot of material on YouTube about this topic. I challenge you to go and watch the (late) Christopher Hitchens' debates with Christian clergymen and rabbis. watch the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbzd6ZbCowY&feature=related
For those who don't know, Christopher Hitchens was one of the group known as the Four Horsemen of Atheism along with Professor Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dent. In my opinion, he was the best of them all and his death left a great void.
In Israel, unfortunately, the arena is completely promiscuous to people such as Amnon Yitzchak who poison the minds of young and old people. How is it that there is not a single intellectual in Raupa who would be willing to conduct arguments in the style Hitchens used to do with clergymen? Why isn't there a single physicist/biologist here to lift the glove
I call on Iden to try to take up such a spectacular project and not let Amnon Yitzhakim forever laugh because the law of large numbers is not in our favor
serious
In my opinion, the problem is that a scientist who believes in creationism (not in God, that's another issue), actually says something like: I'm a scientist, but I don't accept the scientific method.
This is because creationism is scientifically unacceptable.
By the way, regarding intelligence (without being required for the essence of the claim, but for the essence of the argument):
If the claim says that anyone who does not accept evolution does not understand it (they will answer, those who do not understand are stupid, or those who do not jump red and the like) let it go.
But if the argument says that among those who do not accept it (evolution), the level of intelligence is lower.
So the fact that there are intelligent people who do not accept it, does not negate the argument itself... (without going into the assumption about the "wisdom" of leaders...(-: ).
The debate takes place when the same scientist who believes in creation - is simply a person whose religion made him lose his mind. There are enough scientific fields where a person's private belief does not matter, for example material theory, or even cell biology.
The science on this matter has been unequivocal for 153 years.
point
I appreciate that most of the information, the knowledge we have, and with it we shape our beliefs, our opinions,
We were told, written to us, and shown to us.
If your claim is true that there are people who do not accept evolution because of the difficulty of understanding it,
So those who believe in evolution will supposedly have a higher mental capacity than those who believe in creation.
I don't think that's true, it's easy to find among the creation believers heads of states, scientists, doctors, well-known artists
And more.
I didn't claim it was critical what a person believes, I just claimed it was an interesting question. And it will be challenging
To try to understand why one believes in creation and the other in evolution. Not only that, there are those who completely change you
their belief and pass absolutely, from a belief from a certain concept to the one that is contrary to it.
I previously suggested that the need to "believe" is stronger than any thought, reason and will, because the same need is inherent in us, in our feelings.
Very sad!!! It is hard for me to digest the fact that in such a technologically and scientifically developed world, so many are ignorant (and not only in the US but all over the world and of course also here...).
Every year during Book Week I am amazed anew by the long tables of cartography, New Age and alternative literature, while popular science literature has to be searched with a magnifying glass.
Too bad and very sad!
This can be explained by the fact that since the things that happened during evolution are unfathomable (the scientific explanation for this is that the time that has passed is also unfathomable, and the amount of particles involved in the matter is also unfathomable) so it is difficult for people to accept this.
It is not critical what this or that person believes. The more important part is whether he asks himself questions or he accepts what he was told and that's it.
The bloation is OUT
my father
There is no novelty here. I think it's interesting to discuss and try to somewhat understand the reason or reasons.
What I understood is that it is not at all possible to point out any measurable differences between those who believe in creation and those who believe in evolution
After all, if we claim that concept X makes more sense than concept Y, we will have to prove that the followers of X have better thinking than the followers of Y. And that would really not be true, in my opinion.
This is an extremely interesting and challenging question, how is it possible, for example, that two learned scientists and researchers whose intellectual ability cannot be doubted disagree with each other on such an important question, evolution or creation.
I disagree with the concept of creation, but it is a fact that I cannot convince the believer in creation that he is wrong,